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. MBisanz talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival[edit]

2009 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not accept articles for events that have not yet occurred. This is a notable music event (of course), but as it hasn't happened yet it's inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a place to promote an upcoming music festival months in advance. Steven Walling (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I strongly disagree that the policy supports keeping a single sentence article for a music festival that is months away. While evolving articles are of course expected, the encyclopedia isn't a place where one-liner placeholder articles are rational or beneficial. If it's so far ahead of the event that not even a firm musical line up can be added, then it's too early. At best, it should be merged with the main Coachella article. Steven Walling (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And then the article will be recreated within weeks. Why even waste our time deleting it when we know the article is going to exist and its notability will not be in question? Please READ WHAT THE POLICY ACTUALLY SAYS, as you are misinterpreting it. WP:CRYSTAL is absolutely clear about the fact that articles like this may exist. It says, A) "The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." -- which, considering that we have NINE OTHER ARTICLES in exactly the same form, suggests that a tenth one is going to also pass our notability requirements. and, B) "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." -- the 2009 Coachella festival certainly meets both these criteria. and, C) "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." ... is it unverifiable speculation that the 2009 Coachella festival is going to happen? No -- there is a reliable secondary source in the article (a popular music magazine) that backs up the statements made by the article.
Trying to claim that this article doesn't merit inclusion because of WP:CRYSTAL is a specious, invalid argument that misrepresents both the letter and intent of the policy. Either withdraw the nomination, or find another reason for deleting the article. Warren -talk- 00:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Calm down with the capslock there, cowboy. It's a deletion discussion, not a shouting match. It's not a specious argument to say that an article for an event written so far in advance that it cannot be expanded more than single sentence is premature. I'm not saying we should never have an article for Coachella 2009. I'm saying that it's too early, so early in fact, that it's not possible to verify basic details that should be in the article. If it can't be verified, then it's time to hold off until it can be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for single-sentence placeholder adverts for music festivals. Steven Walling (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not a cowboy, but I do get annoyed with having to tell experienced administrators to fully read policy documents. It shouldn't be necessary, but from time to time, it is. And yes, I'm well familiar what the encyclopedia is -- I've been telling people "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" for longer than you've had an account. Chances are pretty excellent that if I can walk you through a proper reading of WP:CRYSTAL, I don't need you to respond by telling that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's a bit offensive.
Anyways, given that you haven't actually refuted any of the points I've made regarding what WP:CRYSTAL actually says; given that you haven't actually demonstrated that the information cannot be verified (there is a reliable secondary source right in the article, and more are readily available... USA Today had an article on Coachella 2009 just a few days ago); and given that you haven't actually demonstrated that the topic isn't notable... what's left? If it's down to "delete it because it reads like advertising"... well, how exactly? It's a one-sentence article that says where and when the event will take place -- that's information, not advertising. More can and should be written, but nobody's gotten around to it yet. That's why we have ((music-festival-stub)) (which is used on hundreds of articles). This encourages the writing of articles that we ought to have. There have already been about 125 edits to the article, from a variety of IPs, so clearly it's a topic people are coming to the encyclopedia to see. Warren -talk- 08:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to think that WP:CRYSTAL is the only thing that I and others have mentioned here. It's not. You and I clearly disagree about what the policy means, so I'm not going to argue about that other than to restate that I think it clearly supports not having a premature article. But other than CRYSTAL, you might try using a little basic common sense. Our most basic requirement is that an article be verifiable, as you know. Just because we can safely assume that it's going to happen someday doesn't mean it's a good idea to have an article on it. We can also safely assume that Coachella 2010 is going to happen too, but it's in the exact same position as this article: too early to verify anything other than mere existence. That's not just an inappropriate article. It's totally and completely obvious if you just look at the subject and the content we have - no policy argumentation needed. Steven Walling (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. There is a line up and the event is notable. --Kimberly M. (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.
More