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 Speedy close per partial WP:SK, and WP:SNOW. This is unlikely to end in anything other than keep and currently there is consensus to do so. — _Maggot^Syn 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2008 Final[edit]

No sources, event is in the future, not clear as of yet whether or not an article will ever be needed for this. No prejudice against properly recreating whenever significant coverage specifically for the final can be found, and the parent article UEFA Euro 2008 would then become overlong, so that splitting would be justified. dorftrottel (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it will be expanded in the coming month, would be very unnecessary to delete and re-create, UEFA Euro 2004 Final exists, and I'm sure all other Euro finals are planned to be made... World Cup, UEFA Cup, Champions League Final articles exist as well and all the tournaments are in the same category of importance, i would asume. ← chan dler 05:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom: No prejudice against recreating when verifiable content is available. dorftrottel (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already verifiable content in the page - date, time, location. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already in the parent article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would be shocked if this article wasn't recreated and of significant length and detail by the end of the month (two weeks away) if deleted. So what is the point of this AfD? - Shudde ^talk 06:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To drive home the message that articles should only be created on the basis of reliable sources, and need to have at least some content. dorftrottel (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already some content in the page - date, time, location. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already in the parent article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't everything. So far there is no reason to have an article, as evidenced by the fact that the page is virtually empty and has no encyclopedic content whatsoever. dorftrottel (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already encyclopedic content in the page - date, time, location. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already in the parent article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely keep. This is a notable event, and easily falls into the exceptions lined out in WP:CRYSTAL. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a relevant criterion only if there were any encyclopedic content. dorftrottel (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia has no deadline. 2) Don't demolish a house while it's still being built. The event is in two weeks. What's the hurry here? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. What's the hurry in creating an article ahead of time, ahead of any content? dorftrottel (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already content in the page - date, time, location. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That information is already in the parent article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if the match is never played, it would be useful to keep the article if only to explain why the match was never played. As it stands, the article is about the biggest match of the 2008 football calendar and I see no reason to delete it. I could even find you a few references if you want. – PeeJay 08:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even? References are not some fancy luxury. They need to be included on article creation. Yes, please go ahead an add those references, and ideally some content based on them. dorftrottel (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll do it when I get home, as I'm going on a day out just now. – Pee Jay 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Surely you jest. Well beyond the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL. We know when it will be played - down to the minute of kick-off. We know where it will be played. We know it is the culmination of a competition currently in progress. We know for certain that this article will be needed within a couple of weels, and we already have enough information for the article to have been started. It already has viable encyclopedic content, and it will soon get more. To delete it now would simply be a waste of everyone's time - a bit like this afd. Grutness...wha? 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, it took me about ten seconds to find verification of the information on this page and add it. I wonder how long it took to create this AFD? Longer than ten seconds, I bet... Grutness...wha? 10:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't 'jest'. There is no information that merits an article split. It's idiotic to preemptively create article pages for upcoming events when there is no content that justifies a separate article. dorftrottel (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its pointless to delete the article for two weeks and recreate it then (as the final very definitely will deserve it's own article). It probably was unnecessary to create this article yet but deleting the article for such a short period is needless. Anyway strictly speaking it does meet WP:CRYSTAL - (almost) certain to take place and with verifiable information on the location and time of the final. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (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.