Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basketball at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's tournament

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. No agreement to salt the article Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's tournament

Basketball at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article borders on a hoax. No references are cited for the factual information within it. For example, it lists the venue for this sport as Exhibition Place, but this website states that a venue hasn't been announced. Aside from the poor grammar, which can be fixed, there are multiple redlinks, and statements which seem to have no basis in fact, such as "there will be just two automatically qualified team, the hosts Canada and the United States." The games will be in Toronto; how is the U.S. a host? Perhaps others feel this article has merit and can be salvaged and sourced. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's way too soon to be creating event articles for next year's Pan Am Games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Future event, salt until two weeks after July 19, 2015.  Uses future tense.  No encyclopedic value, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and also there is a risk here of promoting the event.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and comment) - First, agree that it is too early for this article and there isn't enough detail to realistically populate an article. However, this is the second time I have seen "delete and salt until 2 weeks after the event" as a proposed solution to a future event article. First, salting the article after it has been created once is a serious overreaction. If we assume good faith, we would assume that the article was created in error by an editor who perhaps doesn't understand when "too soon" is to create an article about a notable event. Salting is an appropriate response if an article is recreated after AfD review, but would be an inappropriate response over just one perhaps ill-advised creation. Second, if you were going to salt it for some reason waiting until two weeks after the event is done is ridiculous. Real news about this FIBA-sponsored event will be occurring a month or so prior to the start of the tournament - announcement of the draw, suspensions, announcement of the country's squads, etc. And as the event happens, users will update results real-time - in exactly the same way that election results are recorded on Wikipedia real-time, film awards are recorded as they are handed out, and deaths of notable individuals are recorded as the news breaks. As notable events occur, they are encyclopedic. The idea of having a completed notable event without an article for two full weeks after its conclusion is ridiculous. Rikster2 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Rikster2 about these absurd salting proposals that have happened recently. Those are extreme measures taken when articles get re-created numerous times in spite of an AfD. Leave this (soon to be deleted) article alone and wait to see if anyone intentionally loops around the AfD to recreate it. I highly doubt it will happen. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appeals to emotion are not a substitute for policy based arguments, unless, of course, the objective is anarchy.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy basis to your argument to salt the article until 2 weeks after the event. Rikster2 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Jrcla2 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No?  Are you sure?  To repeat your own words, "Real news...will be occurring a month or so prior..."  So you are advocating to use Wikipedia as a newspaper instead of as an encyclopedia.  That is not a policy-based position.  We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  Further, there is no WP:DEADLINE.  Why write articles in future tense, when editors know that what they are writing has no long-term value to the encyclopedia?  How is that "building" an encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, "real news" serves as sources for encyclopedic articles about notable events and reliable sources begin reporting about aspects of notable events prior to their occurance. Which means that there is sufficient information to start an article that will evolve as the event unfolds. In an extreme case you get a valid articles like Star Wars Episode VII or 2020 Summer Olympics. WP:CRYSTAL states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." There is nothing in there that precludes future events, just guidance for the conditions that must be present (which this article has not yet met, but most likely will before it officially starts). There is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits creating articles on notable future events so long as reliable sources are reporting on them and the WP article is not serving as the primary source. Current events are documented on Wikipedia all the time in every domain and is certainly not forbidden. As to the suggestion of salting an article until two weeks after the event - no, there is no policy basis to that argument - and I am quite sure of it. If your issue is that you don't believe the FIBA-sponsored basketball tournaments that occur within the PanAm games are notable at all, that is a different argument that has nothing to do with articles on future and current events. It's also not one that has been brought up as an objection to this article. Rikster2 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you initially said "real news", you did not mean "real news sources", so the shift of meaning in your reply says something.  Perhaps you are a newbie who doesn't know the difference between WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the use of newspapers as sources.  Perhaps you are aware of WP:CRYSTAL and haven't seen WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  To quote your words, "Real news about this FIBA-sponsored event will be occurring a month or so prior to the start of the tournament - announcement of the draw, suspensions, announcement of the country's squads, etc."  I've below quoted WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which has many relevant points, for example, it specifically mentions "announcements".  How much of such material will be of interest to readers in ten years?  Or is the plan to write in future tense knowing that the material will be dated and worthless within weeks or months?  I still remember an article about the 2012 US Olympics team that began reporting US medal totals over a year in advance.  For over a year, the reports were always up to date and completely accurate, 0 gold, 0 silver, and 0 bronze.  Instead of objecting to not being able to report announcements of future events because a future-event article is salted, I suggest that you use your talent to create timeless articles on topics such as Preparation for the 2015 Pan-American Games.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you know what I meant better than I do? Interesting. Real time events on a notable topic are fine to add to articles. You have an agenda and your best recourse would be to to try and find consensus through an RFC on the topic. Because no admin in their right mind would accept your suggestion of salting an article on a notable topic for two weeks after the event. Rikster2 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of which were created by myself and are well referenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest a redirect. I am working on adding references/creating articles related to event. A full deletion would not be helpful at this point. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote From WP:NOTNEWSPAPER:
This is the issue. Your underlying assumption is that this event does not have enduring notability and therefore are suggesting that the material is routine news. this event (and even more so the 2015 NBA draft which was the other future event you tried to apply this argument to) has enduring notability, therefore the argument you are trying to apply is moot. If you disagree that this event has enduring notability, a good test case would be for you to AfD the corresponding article for a past PanAm games to test your theory. Rikster2 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that "issue" is not something I've said so it is a red herring.  For reasons that you've not explained, you want to use the excuse that this topic can be expected to be wp:notable to use Wikipedia to do newspaper reporting as the event draws near.  I again suggest that you use your talent to write encyclopedic material that will stand the test of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the topic is notable, then you should AfD the 2011 article of the same tournament. The tournament is what it is, either you think it is a notable recurring event or you don't. But if you insist on suggesting that this article be salted until 2 weeks after the event is over (the thing that I have pushed back on all along), then it would be helpful if you could provide examples where this has been done in the past (articles salted until a date a week or two after the future event is scheduled to end) so we can see how this case stacks up to those. I'd offer to help, but I honestly don't know of a single case where this has happened. Everyone agrees this article should be AfD'ed in August, 2014. Let's just leave it at that. Rikster2 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We are not talking about an event in 2011, we are talking about a future event.  There is a difference between the two.  We don't know that an event in 2015 will ever occur, and at Wikipedia, we don't need to WP:SPECULATE, as we can wait.  There is a continuing risk that this title will be used to violate WP:NOT, so salting remains appropriate.  "We've done it this way before" is a logical fallacy, because just because it has been done before does not prove that it has been done in the best way.  I'm not sure as to the name of that fallacy, but it is related to argumentum ad populum.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't have any precedence for what you are suggesting and would like this article to be the first. Got it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for articles about events that may or may not happen, as we can wait until the event is done, and there is no WP:DEADLINE.  IMO, doing otherwise risks opening up the pedia to commercial interests seeking to promote their future events.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've already !voted above to delete this article because its creation was premature per WP:CRYSTAL; that is consistent with how we have handled future sports events over the last several years. However, I must strongly disagree with the suggestion that this article title should be "salted" and its re-creation prevented until some time after the Pan Am Games basketball tournament is actually completed; that is not consistent with the last several years of AfD precedents. There is no reason whatsoever why this article should not be re-created 30 to 60 days before the scheduled events begin to take place. Thirty-plus days before the event, reliable sources will be available regarding qualifying teams, team coaches and members, tournament seeding and brackets, tournament venues, etc. We routinely create articles for the Olympics, Olympic events, college and professional football seasons, and other similar sports events several months before the scheduled event or season begins. The Pan Am Games have been held 16 times since 1951, and we can be reasonably sure that the XVIIth iteration, including the women's basketball tournament, will be held in 2015. Bottom line: SALTING until the tournament is completed IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR DESIRABLE. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Basketball_at_the_2015_Pan_American_Games_–_Women%27s_tournament&oldid=1137599805"