Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 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 delete. — FireFox 12:17, 22 July '06

[edit] 2022 FIFA World Cup

This article was originally prodded for deletion, but was objected to without any explanation by an anon. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; 16 years is way too far in advance for an article. Because of the unanimous deletion votes comments on 2026 FIFA World Cup, I propose a speedy deletion (or at least, close this debate quickly -- I don't think any user will object). Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I found its very existence informative, and the date is not beyond the scope of reasonable speculation, given that bids have to be completed not less than eight years before each competition. User:rwgray 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not sure about speedy (the 2026 is still open). ~ trialsanderrors 06:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the 2026 FWC nomination has been met with unanimous delete votes comments. I fixed my reason for deletion to clarify things Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I saw that, and I'm sure this one will go down too. I just can't find any WP:CSD criterion that applies. In any case, I'll add a link to this one at 2026. ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, me neither. There should be a speedy deletion criterion that can delete articles about "sporting events that little content or are extremely in the future." Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this too, as it contains almost no known information, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per... we finished the last one, what, a week ago? A bit too soon for an article. R.E. Freak 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sensing a head... an angry head, is it - ? Yes, yes... it's striking another player in the chest... tmopkisn ^tlka 06:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing non-speculative, as per the reasoning behind Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Crazywolf 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete rewrite it in 16 yrs. Michael 06:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Leave it up and running! Although the 2022 Cup is still way in the future, information already starts popping up so why not have it in Wikipedia? What's posted here is not some private person's thoughts but the info backed up by newspaper publications, so to a certain degree it's a credible info. There is a lot of speculative info re: 2014 and 2018 Cups as well, yet nobody proposes to delete it. And lastly, why are you so obsessed with the deletion? If you don't like it, just don't read it - read something else instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs).

Comment - Apples, oranges. There is speculative info for 2014, but the bidding process has already began, at least unofficially, and because of the continental rotation system, it's narrowed down to a few number of candidates. 2018 is far in the future but there is already debate over whether this will be part of the continental rotation. There's no such substantial discussion for 2022 and beyond. Also, the "if you don't like it, don't read it" doesn't work for me. If Wikipedia is filled with trivial and/or speculative information, it devalues the whole project as an encyclopedia. So yeah, Delete. Ytny 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just thick. You make an argument for keeping the article and use the same article to recommend deletion. Really clever eh fellah ? Palx 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Indent is your friend. So is WP:CIV. Ytny 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, we should delete because it's speculative but we should keep because it's speculative. I understand. Apologies for any lack of civility. It gets frustrating reading things people post sometimes. I should get out more. Palx 08:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment to the above Comment Surely, there is no such SUBSTANTIAL discussion but THERE IS a discussion going on already. This aricle quotes such officials as the FFA President, for example, so you can't call it just a speculation if it comes from such a high-ranking official. And besides, there was a discussion to move the 2010 WC from South Africa to USA in case the South Arficans won't fix all problems on time, so you might as well delete "the 2010 FIFA World Cup" article until 2010. There is an alricle in Wikipedia called "the 2024 Summer Olympics", for example, and nobody has any problem with it whatsoever, so what's the problem with "the 2022 World Cup"? It clearly states that it "contains information about a future sporting event. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available." Therefore, it doesn't devalue the project but gives the reader some insight about the future event, event which, unlike some national jump rope competition, billions of people around the world are obsessed with. So please, don't touch it but update as the time goes on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs).

Comment You just made the case for keeping 2010 WC as opposed to 2022. There's enough happening for 2010 that FIFA has to make official announcements that it will stay in South Africa. As it is, the 2022 article is more about Australian soccer than the World Cup, and the opening sentence includes a "thinks" and two uses of "probably". There's no information about 2022 beyond "Wouldn't it be nice if..". What's wrong with waiting 4 more years until there's real information about it? Ytny 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Optional smart-ass question What is "speculative info"? JChap (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this page for crystal ball-gazing reasons. Perhaps move the information on the proposals for the Australian bid to an article connected to the FFA or the Socceros, although even then there'll be a fair amount of wild speculation to remove. As I see the "Future Sporting Event" warning, it relates more to an event the general details of which are known, but not the specifics (so we know that the 2008 Olympics will be in Beijing but not exactly how they're going to be run, we know that South Africa's scheduled to host the 2010 World Cup, but not who'll be competing apart from Bafana Bafana themselves). In this case, we know none of that. BigHaz 10:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The host team is no longer guaranteed a place in the World Cup, so S.Africa may not be in come 2010. ;) Kimchi.sg 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The host team still has a guaranteed place. It's the reigning champions who no longer get one. Jess Cully 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until FIFA at least open the bidding process Nuttah68 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As written, this article is mostly about one nation's (Australia's) probable role in an event that won't happen for another 16 years. That's far too narrow a scope for an article on a future event. Very general specifics are one thing, but with such a specific topic this article can't help being overly speculative. Scorpiondollprincess 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE -- Whpq 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No useful info, just idle speculation that Australia might bid if they don't get 2018. That's not enough to justify a page so far in advance. Jess Cully 19:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - just a load of speculation - not for WP Martinp23 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. not a crystal ball? Alphachimp ^talk 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm usually *very* much in favour of articles about future events, but in this case, there's hardly anything we could mention. —Nightstallion (?) 10:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Many of the people who will be competing in this event are still in diapers for heaven's sake! 23skidoo 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT Delete You would think it's not going to happen the way people here are talking. Not a single reasonable argument put forward. Not one. Why don't you delete Halleys Comet too ? ridiculous to suggest this article be deleted. The 2022 WC is a fact ! this is an encyclopaedia ! what is the problem ? stupid stupid arguments like crystal ball really get my back up. Now leave the article alone. Palx 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a fact, it's a projection. If there was an article on "Halley's Comet pass of year 26,749" I would recommend deleting that too. Delete. Fagstein 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

there isn't which effectively means you are talking rubbish. please stay on topic if you are challenging. World Cup 2022 is in the future but it is also a fact. what part do you not understand ?Palx 15:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete The information on the 2022 World Cup is surely speculative for a (very) big part, but still it contains information from official sources as there is the Australian FFA president. I understand the crystal ball argument, but the line between 'allowing' 2018 and 2022 is thin. So why not create one page concerning the World Cup tournaments further than 4 years into the future and put all information for 2018, 2022 and further together? --Pelotas^talk 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's actually might be an excellent suggestion - to make one page for all future World Cups starting from 2022 and beyond. I'd recommend to keep a separate page for the 2018 WC, though, as there is a lot of info already re: this event. Name this page simply "Future FIFA World Cups". There is enough info already available on 2022-2030 WCs to make one web page. There is even a site promoting WC 2030 in Uruguay (in Spanish, http://uruguay2030.tripod.com/), event that's still 24 years in future. Surely all this warrants the inclusion of all the available info to the Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 July, 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think it's an idea worth cosidering, though the information that's in the 2022 probably belogs in the 2018 page under the Australian bid. Still, I disagree that the line between keeping 2018 and 2022 is thin; there's a huge dropoff in the amount of actual information. As it is, we only have the FFA represetative talking about if the 2018 Aussie bid fails assuming 2018 is still part of the continetal rotation. Too many variables and not enough definite facts or official statements, I think. And the 2030 page looks like more wishful thinking than an actual bid committee, though that might be because I can't read Spanish. Ytny 08:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is, I seriously doubt that there are countries who will bid for 2022+ that will not bid for 2018. If any country is considering bidding for a future World Cup, logic would tell us that they would bid for the next opportunity (that is, 2018), rather than waiting four more years until 2022 or later (this is assuming the continental rotation will end after 2014). Do you see what I mean? Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment There is logic in that, but there always might be reasons to let one chance pass, for instance when there is another event already planned to be organised in that nation in that year (Olympics or a World Championship of another sport for instance), or maybe the nation wants to make a good first impression and first improves the infrastructure, stadiums etc... before submitting a bid. (Although I must admit the Australia case contradicts this.) Anyway, I wonder if this logic is really an important thing to consider: if an official source mentions a nation will be going for World Cup 2030, does it matter if we think they will probably also try for World Cups 2018, 2022 and 2026? --Pelotas^talk 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the logic too, but for the purpose of Wikipedia, I find it irrelevant. You're making an assumption about the intention of the candidate nations, however logical it may be, and you're asking Wikipedia to be a crystal ball. No one will come out and say, "We probably don't have a chance in 2018 but we're making a token bid in preparation for 2026" and you'd be dealing with speculation, not facts. Again, what happens in 2022 depends too heavily on events that haven't taken place yet i.e. the fate of the continental rotation, whether an European or a non-European nation gets 2018, etc. Really, is it too much to wait, oh I don't know, another six years before creating this article? :) Ytny 09:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I worded that wrong. I meant, even if it is just a token bid before a country really makes a go at it, the information will not change, unless their bidding strategy makes a complete turn-around. Therefore, if Country X is making a token bid for 2018, and going for real in 2022, then their bid info would be the same. They'll still use Stadium A in City B. Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to annoy anyone, but I don't completely buy that. The information WILL change, surely a nation will show to the FIFA Committee that it has improved a lot since four years earlier. Ofcourse since we're indeed looking into the future the difference is not immediately visible now, but surely you have to consider more than just the stadiums! Also quoting you twice: Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period' I can indeed agree that that is seriously worded wrong. What possible motivation could you have to determine that 2018 is the limit for useful information? The page 2022 Winter Olympics exists and if you look at the information on that page well, there's no reference and three of the four mentioned cities are also on the 2018 Winter Olympics page. However I still agree that a complete page on the 2022 FIFA World Cup is probably overdoing it, but I dont agree that the information should be neglected because it's further into the future than your 'allowed year' of 2018. --Pelotas^talk 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't word anything right. Sue me. What I meant by Future articles aren't needed past 2018. Period, is that, as of 2006 (and perhaps a few years later), there is no need for any article about hosting until either (a) the shortlist is announced for 2014, and prospective candidates who were using 2018 as a warm-up for 2022 are not on the shortlist or (b) it has been announced that the continental will continue until 2018, in which case, all relevant information will be merged into the 2022 article. Hopefully I worded it okay this time. Ian Manka Talk to me! 09:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I have no more arguments I can think of right now that I haven't mentioned already. Looks like I'm also almost the only one thinking this way, am I so stubborn? Anyway I hope most people using the crystal ball argument are not just copying from the intro without thinking. --Pelotas^talk 09:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT Delete Revolutionfan 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 2022 is way to far ahead, things could change majorly between now and then MrDaveS 22:24, 19 July 2006 (BST)
• Strong delete it's merely speculation --Angelo 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete (Even stronger!) Ladies and gentlemen, let's draw the line under this discussion. Obviously there are people here who are in favor of keeping the article, like myself, Pelotas, and some others. So I believe our desire to see this article up and running must be respected. We produced all the arguments we could in its favor, and the final one is this: we want it, so please let us have it. Does this article offends or abuses anyone? Does it have racist, pornographic, or similar content? No, of course. So leave it for God's sake! To all the people who are obsessed with deletion here, go to articles "2022 Winter Olympics" and "2024 Summer Olympics" and vent your feelings there! Delete those two and leave us this one! Deal?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC).
  • ...or no deal Unfortunately I don't think you quite get how AfD works. It's not about how much someone wants an article, it's about whether it fulfills the standards of Wikipedia. The key thing in this case is that it needs to be verifiable (see WP:V). As all we have is speculation there's no way to verify whether it is or isn't true, so ultimately we can't have an article until there's some concrete facts (e.g. a statement of intent to bid by an FA). --Daduzi ^talk 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I just don't know how to get this message across you guys, so I used that last argument that we simply want this article up. 1. About the standards of WP. Surely it should apply to ALL articles, not just this one, right? Therefore, first check out "2022 Winter Olympics" and "2024 Summer Olympics" articles. They contain the same speculative info as this one, yet NOBODY wants to delete them. Is it a double-standard or what? Now to 2. Article needs to be verifiable. The info contained in it is backed up by newspaper publication. If this is not enough for you, you may contact the Australian FA and verify their intention to bid for WC2022 in case their 2018 bid will fail. What other kind of verification do you need? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.41.160.35 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC).
      • As regards other articles, that's rarely an argument that works (unless the articles have gone through an AfD and been kept). Ultimately there's a lot of articles on here that probably could be deleted but haven't been challenged yet. If you feel that the 2022 Winter Olympics and 2024 Summer Olympics articles don't belong then you can list them for deletion separately. As for the verification issue, I didn't make myself clear; what needs to be verifieable is the fact that it's likely that Australia intends to bid for 2022. As things stand all that can be gained from the newspapers is one statement by the FA chief exec that they could bid. Which still leaves us with speculation, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oh, and please sign your comments with --~~~. --Daduzi ^talk 10:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment On the contrary, I believe that those two "Olympic" articles should be on WP as well for as long as there is at least one piece of info re:them. As for verification, then using your logic you may as well delete 2014 and 2018 WC articles since all we have there is just statements from respective officials that they "could" bid without any documentary proof that they will actually bid. --~~~.
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball or a soap box. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, article is not verifiable as things stand. --Daduzi ^talk 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no point to have this article whatsoever. After 2008 (when 2014's host is decided), or 2010 (World Cup in South Africa) then restart it, but no sooner. Comedy240 17:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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.