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 KEEP per WP:SNOW. feydey 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not an almanac. Vassyana 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons. Same style and approximate content.:

Note to participants and closing sysop: The sequence of articles continues on to 2059.

Comment While I can see that the more distant years are subject to much trivia and crystalballing, I believe that the less far off years, most notably 2008, contain useful, sourceable information about events that are (barring highly unusual circumstances) certainly going to happen and of which much information is already known. Also, from experience and observation, I have noted that mass listings almost never come to consensus and are problematic at best. J0lt C0la 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where does it say that Wikipedia is not an almanac? WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball says:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.

Many of these year articles contain predicted events that should be cleared out, but they also contains events that are notable and almost certain to occur, such as anniversaries, eclipses, elections, major sporting events, etc. Those appear to conform to WP:NOT -Will Beback · † · 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything up to and including 2014, at least. These articles contain a significant amount of encyclopedic information about everything from currency adoptions to sporting events to astronomical occurrences. The information is not crystal-balling in that these things are (save a massive world war) virtually certain to occur. No opinion about 2015 on. Edited to move my comment down to a more appropriate location. --Charlene 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (cross-post) I'd say that an article on 2008 and 2059 are very different. Okay, so the world might blow up on 31 December of this year, but that doesn't make the article about 2008 unencyclopedic. I'd say that at least through 2013 or 2014 are encyclopedic; from there on they start to get a little vague. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not crystal-ballery if there are verifiable scheduled or predicted (or fictional) events for a given year. This is the case with (almost) all of the listed years. If there are years with only one or two items, bring them back here and list them separately. Grand master ka 02:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it !!. ...you guys have too much time on your hands... lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.123.52.212 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Fbv65edel --AAA! ^(AAAA) 03:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Keep Some of these entries may be crystal ball stuff, or rather obscure bits of trivia, but conceptually, the article is no different from 1960 or 1066. I therefore, have no objection in principle to these articles at this time. Practically? Some of them need some cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. I have nothing but respect for Vassyana who helped me through a painful mediation awhile back. But Wikipedia very explicitly does incorporate elements of an almanac — the first sentence of the Five Pillars. Sourcing should be improved to remove crystal-ballery, but sourced information about certain to happen future events is perfectly encyclopedic and in fact is encouraged per WP:CRYSTAL. --JayHenry 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Do we honestly think that these years will not come to pass? There are many events and things that we know for fact will pass in these years, so why should we have to wait until then to add them? Ben W Bell talk 07:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I urge everyone to put a few year articles, past and future, on their watchlists. They are aapparently a frequent first edit for new editors. -Will Beback · † · 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment. Will a sysop please close this as speedy keep, per consensus and WP:SNOW? I would close this myself, but non-admins are discouraged from closing such cases in the deletion policy. Vassyana 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It bothers me to see WP:NOT misapplied this way. RFerreira 08:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I have every expectation that 2009 (and all the other years) will arrive and I'm reasonably sure that most of the predicted events will happen - Easter, astronomical phenomena, etc. Very useful set of articles. andy 09:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep these are not predictions but things that will happen - delete unsourceable predictions within these articles though. Think outside the box 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.