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 no consensus. First off, it's silly to nominate deletion of the "2080's" but not the surrounding decades. Arguing that the years may not happen is really pointless -- because if they don't happen, we won't be here anyway, and there won't be anyone to point out that Wikipedia had an article about a time period that never actually happened. The article isn't baseless and provides information about lunar events, milestones, etc scheduled to happen. Presumably, as we get closer to 2080, more events will be added. The article could use more references for some of the information. Improving the article to look less like WP:CRYSTAL and be more informative would be a better solution than deleting it. Any admin that feels this closure is inappropriate is more than welcome to reverse it and speak to me on my talk page. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2080s[edit]

2080s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

• See previous (group) nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Though it may sound absurd, I'm testing the boundaries of WP:CBALL here. Are we really certain this period will take place? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2080s will take place, regardless of whether anybody is there to see them, as will some of the events listed (and others are 2080s in fiction, which have already taken place). Is this a joke? Is there a reason you're AfDing this and not 2090s? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a large consensus to delete, I will be nominating the other future years. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article violates WP:SPECULATION. Dr meetsingh  Talk  14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering we are what 67 years away from this it's way too early. Mean we know the Olympic Games of 2028 will in all likelyhood happen but we haven't got a stub on that. GAtechnical (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes we have. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Part of a bigger scheme. The predicted scientific events easily pass WP:CRYSTAL - IE notable events that will happen. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I could understand merging 2100s through 2190s into 22nd century, but the individual astronomical events here are clearly not WP:CRYSTAL, and are probably sufficient to warrant the existence of the page. Also, part of a larger pattern. If 2190s (the last decade with an article) were to be nominated for deletion, the "part of a pattern" argument would not be as signficiant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject Years has been notified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not delete 2030s, 2040s, 2050s, 2060s, 2070s, 2090s, are we sure if even 2014 will happen. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's crystal ball gazing and then there's this. Obviously as we get closer, more and more things will be given 2080's deadlines. I wouldn't be excited about date-specific events in the 2080s being given stand-alone articles, but I think an article encompassing the entire decade-to-be is probably okay... for about the next 50 years or so. Even the year-specific fictional stuff is probably enough to justify an article as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 00:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may happen and then again, it may not happen. It is a long way off. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — it's "gonna" happen — and significant (even if only science-related) events are "gonna" happen to... if for some bizarre reason it doesn't then we aren't going to be around to snow delete it, anyhow. ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' - but remove any entries failing WP:CRYSTAL. Needing cleanup in no reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2013 (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.