Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Chicago Bears season

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 was delete.--Wizardman 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Chicago Bears season

2009 Chicago Bears season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Major instance of WP:CRYSTAL, specifically part 2. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Per WP:CRYSTAL:"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." If the league has already announced the game schedule then it falls under this guideline. Nardman1 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The league schedule is based on a formula, and is known years in advance. Nothing has been "announced" per se. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Part 2 of WP:CRYSTAL refers to ordered or expected events where only the name is known, basically. There is encyclopedic information (the schedule) available for this entry. The example listed in Part 2 describes a future hurricane name, which would be inappropriate since only the name (no encyclopedic information) would be known about it. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Changing to Delete, but I'm uncertain as to when recreation would be deemed appropriate. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As pointed out by cholmes75 the scheduling of games is fairly formulaic and in and of itself hardly anything notable or useful. This article otherwise has no content and will not have any content for some time. Agree with the conclusion that this is an instance of WP:CRYSTAL in spite of previous arguments that a schedule satisfies a keep. If anything, a predetermined and formulaic play schedule seems to neatly fit the spirit of a "systematic pattern of names" that part 2 of WP:CRYSTAL specifically prohibits. Arkyan 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Part 2 refers to /individual articles/ about items from lists, not articles that contain these lists. See Table_of_lunar_phases Nardman1 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Point taken. That said, 2009 Chicago Bears season itself is an item taken from a predetermined list, and even more telling, Chicago Bears seasons does not even bother placing this year in a list. That a predetermined list of who they will play is known hardly constitutes anything beyond generic information, and doesn't even constitute a complete schedule, as no dates are given. With over 2 years to go before anything useful can be said about the '09 season there is no point in it having an article. Arkyan 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Although not strictly prohibited per argument above, it is nonetheless premature. I imagine a similar argument could have been made back in 2001 for keeping an article on the 2004-2005 NHL season, too, but events turned out differently. 23skidoo 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a fixture list. -- Necrothesp 01:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the 2007 season won't even start for 6 months, yet alone the 2009 season. TJ Spyke 04:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I'm not particularly enthusiastic about keeping this article (I may change my position), but it's really supposed to be solely on encyclopedic content, rather than how far away the future season is. One could say, "We haven't even had the 2008 Summer Olympics, there shouldn't be an article on the 2024 Summer Olympics." But the fact is that there is encyclopedic information in both, so they're both acceptable. Granted, the encyclopedic value of the 2009 Bears article is weak, I'm just making the point that it's not about how far away it is. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It looks as if this sporting team has separate articles on every season back to the year dot. This is much too much for one team in one sport and thus non-encyclopaedic. The right place for such material is on a dedicated website about the team. They shoudl all be merged leaving a modest article on the history of the team. Peterkingiron 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if that's the issue. We'd be setting a precedent for sports teams to not have individual yearly articles (as many currently do) if we deleted on that basis. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 22:14, 6 March 2007 (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.