Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/79th Academy Awards (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  20:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 79th Academy Awards

This article was marked with {{prod}} immediately after it was created for a second time, but it was disputed. The question is whether there is enough content on there so it does not qualify for the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule on WP:NOT. I abstain Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Who's kids are going to be killed if we keep the page? or will it result in the destruction of the world? I for one couldn't care less if it gets deleted or kept and I find it pathetic that something so insignificant is even being disscused. I submit a new topic for disscusion, "How to get a life and not care so much"

Keep After my recent additions, [1] I believe I added enough content on there now that it does not fall into the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Well I don't think it hurts to have an article already, I mean the 78th Academy Award has already been held. --Snailwalker | talk 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see going thru the trouble of deleting it if it'll be recreated in less than a year with good reason. NickelShoe 18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If there is a page for upcoming Olympic Games, surely there can be a page for upcoming Academy Awards. Maaya まあや 18:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• comment That's because we actually KNOW something about the next Olympics. --Bachrach44 18:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I see no reason for this article until nominations have been announced. We don't have a confirmed host, no nominations -- the only thing we know for certain is that it'll be held at the Kodak Theatre. I have no objection to a redlink being in place in the succession box, but I see no need for this. This isn't the Olympics which have numerous news stories and other notable information years in advance of each event. 23skidoo 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article for the 78th Academy Awards was created in January of 2005, OVER a year before the awards show, and there was no objection to it's creation. I don't see a problem in having this article, as long as crystalballism doesn't get stuffed into it (AKA: I think Chris Rock is gonna host again!). Even still, if it gets deleted once again, it'll just be re-created by someone who doesn't know. How soon is too soon? I think less than a year is fine. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lightdarkness, if only to avoid having this debate every month until 2007. Sandstein 19:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sandstein. The article is going to continuously be recreated, and continuously brought back here. Let it rest until next March. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per I disagree with nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's no content to the article right now. Wait till there's at least some information available to put down. Right now we could wright this same article about the 100th academy awards if we wanted to. --Bachrach44 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lightdarkness. --Tone 23:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per NickleShoe. Lawful Hippo 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oh for cripes sake! Keep the stupid thing on. I mean they have a page on the olympics thats being held 8 years from now! --Koolgiy
• Keep per supporting users. Deckiller 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's going to happen anyway, people who come across Wikipedia hoping to search for the 79th Academy Awards won't be too disappointed, even if those facts are not a lot, but it will continue to expand as time passes. Kahlen 03:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I changed some wording in the article ("will be held" to "is scheduled to be held"). We might as well have this page, it will be recreated within a month anyway if it's deleted (not that that's a good reason for "keep", but still). --CrypticBacon 05:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable upcoming event occurring in one year's time. *drew 07:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable upcoming event, article includes useful and verifiable information. Babajobu 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No point in deleting it now. Gflores ^Talk 18:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. You also have my permission to add this vote to the 3rd, 4th and nth times this gets nominated. Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page. Thanks! 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Długosz
• Keep, per the reasons listed by other users above. Other events have articles created years in advance of them (see Super Bowl XLVI for an example). Spicy 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI created this article and I agree with most of what has been said here. Looks like we're keeping it. Bremen 09:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- one doesn't need a crystal ball to acknowledge the present fact that a certain event has been scheduled for a certain time. --Christofurio 14:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• comment there's also going to be a 100th Academy Awards show - should we have a page on that too? --Bachrach44 18:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep one future occasion of any major periodic event. Ardric47 22:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it does need to be expanded (list movies to be released and posssible candidates?), but as has been said many times above, this page will be necessary eventually anyway. Inventm 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's fine, it doesn't do any harm. And it is slightly informative. True that there is no remarkable reason why we need an article yet. But it's more helpful then most of the other articles that really need to be deleted. It's fine. The Filmaker 04:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it'll end up being relevant soon. OsFan 03:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Shouldn't we conclude there is concensus to keep the article and then remove the delete box from the page? --Snailwalker | talk 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, even though debates on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and others can have unanimous results, we generally do not close them until the full seven day period passes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.