Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2034 FIFA World Cup

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. Consensus is that the topic has generated enough coverage by independent reliable sources that it is encyclopedic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2034 FIFA World Cup

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per ~~WP:SNOWBALL~~ WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Drafty WP:TOOSOON. Hhkohh (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already meets WP:GNG. If the issue is to avoid speculative editing, that can be done with a large number of editors watching the page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first bid's already in. The baby is born and it's a healthy article. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes it's 16 years away (!) but there's enough information to justify an article, even if it never happens... Giant Snowman 10:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sensing that 2034 is only 16 years away is both exhilarating and (a little) vertiginous, at least to these 20th century born eyes.

The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sportsfan 1234: did you mean to nominate based on WP:SNOWBALL, or did you intend to nominate based on WP:CRYSTALBALL? Iffy★Chat -- 11:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Already sufficient coverage on the bidding process that it would be notable even if it didn't go ahead. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOWBALL is not a valid deletion rationale. Assuming nom meant WP:CRYSTALBALL, it still doesn't apply because there is ample information available. Smartyllama (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems valid enough to me and just scrapes GNG, don't know if I be alive then to watch it know!! Govvy (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information to warrant an article. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to FIFA World Cup: !voting' is not a headcount against or in the face of broad community consensus and WP:policies and guidelines. This is actually pretty funny. The deadline for filing is 2026 but something 16 years away is notable how? It flies-in-the-face of What Wikipedia is not in so many areas that includes future events, indiscriminate collection of information, or newspaper reporting because it is far WP:TOOSOON. If the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics are examples of what is not acceptable for future events, or even the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 (found in WP:NOT) then we are trying to just slide down a slope that we can now include 2040 content, then 2050-60-70. Because there is other stuff does not give precedence for exemption over broad community consensus that is even included in the five pillars. Because there are news reports of events does not make them inherently acceptable for inclusion. An exception would be that the title and content improves Wikipedia. That would be an acceptable exclusion but that has not been argued and would be dubious. Anything else is just an attempt to open the door for "anything can be included with a source". This would not be so bad as we could stop having AFD's and just fill Wikipedia with anything. Otr500 (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- United States Semiquincentennial exists, though. It's notable enough to include at this point. Why? Because it has been covered in reliable sources. Smartyllama (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Future elections are a poor analogy as the next election will directly affect the following one and the frequency could be change. Whereas, the Also, an article for the 2028 Summer Olympics does exist. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I don't understand the nominator's argument either. However, an article about an event 16 years in the future defies WP:COMMONSENSE. I can understand having an article for the world cup in 2022, at least the location has been selected already, but everything in this article is speculation (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Countries have another 8 years to decide if they even want to submit a bid. I'd also support a selective merge (along with content from the 2026 & 2030 article which also should not exist) into something like Future World Cup bids.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a merge of the contested article into an article that does not exist? -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am, but it would be a merge of three articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly oppose merging the 2026 article with anything, since bidding has officially opened, bids have been officially submitted, and we will (probably) have a host in less than a month. There has also been significant coverage in reliable sources about the expansion to 48 teams in 2026, a unique situation that would justify its own article even if there weren't any bids yet. Nothing official has happened for 2030 or 2034, so perhaps we could merge those two, but concrete bids have been proposed for both even if the official channels to formally submit them haven't opened yet. You could make a stronger case for those two, though. Merging 2026 is ridiculous at this point, and I'm guessing Rusf10 didn't read that article or do any research before recommending the merge or he would have known that. Smartyllama (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We already have 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2030 FIFA World Cup. Why? Because they have been notably reported as future events, even though they are some ways into the future. One can check out the articles for details and sources. The 2034 FIFA World Cup has taken on substance through similar media reports and FIFA members' activity, specifically on the geopolitical, diplomatic level: Asian nations are already moving in for a collective bid. So, the subject's already notable. And everyone should be aware that FIFA's world cups are affairs of an always very long term nature. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Newspapers reporting that some countries have interest in submitting a bid is nothing but speculation, and an article about an event 16 years in the future is clearly either WP:FANCRUFT or a serious lack of WP:COMMONSENSE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In 2013, a prospect of Bahrain hosting the Cup in the next 50 years was mentioned, which surely isn't enough for an article 2062 FIFA World Cup. The 2034 situation is clearly different than that, but how different really? Enough for a standalone article, or a list and some prose concise enough to fit in a section of FIFA World Cup hosts? Almost all of the article's current information is already there, by the way. I'm undecided. --Theurgist (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are only concerned about WP:TOOSOON or WP:BALL, it is better to draftify (move article to draft space), or we will waste time in a few year to recreate it. Hhkohh (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article can always be restored even if it was deleted, in any case, when the time to create the article comes, the available information will probably have changed, so there might be no or little useful content in the draft anyway... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't restore deleted article with a deletion discussion. Hhkohh (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with proper reasons (which would be the case once this article becomes something more than WP:A hell of a lot TOOSOON stuff), yes you can, see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Access_to_deleted_pages 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean we should post to WP:DRV at that time? Hhkohh (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you wouldn't even need to do that - asking an administrator for a copy of the page (at the proper time) would also work 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No! It may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Hhkohh (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G4 explicitly doesn't apply to "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Once this isn't TOOSOON (in maybe a few years), there is nothing which prevents the page from being restored. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is good to me, but draftify is not harmful to me. Hhkohh (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's already being discussed in multiple media articles and passes WP:GNG. This should only be deleted if if nothing can be said about [it] that is verifiable and not original research, which it can currently. SportingFlyer talk 07:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant sports event, by now sufficiently covered in the media. gidonb (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: already sufficient coverage of the presumed bidding, so worth keeping at this point. The article would have been created at some point; no reason to delete it now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is being discussed as noted by the references. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the evebt is set to take place after 16 years. The regular coverage about the subject makes it pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources on the bidding process making it notable and passes WP:GNG even if we destroy the world, a higher being ends life on earth, we're invaded by aliens or any other reason why it doesn't happen. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per The Gnome, the baby has been born with the first bid but there may also potentially be a player in the tournament who may not have been born yet! Tanbircdq (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The youngest player in this year's final is more than 19, and so it's unlikely that a 16-year-old will be playing in 2034, but point taken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of players have played in a World Cup after just turning 17 and many have played international football under this age so it's not inconceivable. This year is a poor showing that there aren't any players aged 18 or under. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we rename this to something like "Bids for the 2034 FIFA World Cup" until there's coverage of anything else relating to it? Currently the only content in this article is countries who are interested in bids and nothing beyond that. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2018 (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.