Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Rugby World Cup
From 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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2015 Rugby World Cup
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Basicob 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tevildo 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Given that planning is well underway for the 2011 RWC, there is already some angling and jockeying for position re the hosting for 2015. As such, this article could be useful and encyclopaedic - especially if some more firm declarations of intent are found. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. this will eventually happen, and might as well include it. Nlsanand 07:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Grutness - the event doesn't happen for nine years, but those sources indicate that the political jockeying behind it is starting to happen. Quack 688 08:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Create the article again when serious planning has begun for this event has begun, that we can report on as an enecyclopedia. As it is, the whole article is speculation, and that is not what Wikipedia is about. Start a blog if you want to speculate. -/- Warren 11:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Bid proposals and coverage thereof already underway. Nathanian 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per Nom. Basically all info in the article is speculative. Citicat 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay, let's look at the relevant quote from WP:NOT:
- 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 isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. (emphasis in original)
- Note that it says speculation is allowed, as long as it's "well documented", not something a Wikipedia editor made up themselves. Something that says "Japan is making a bid" is great, but we don't have to limit ourselves to that. The speculation over countries like Scotland bidding is "well documented" as it's on the public record, therefore we can include it here. Aside from that, 2015 RWC is notable, and almost certain to take place, so I don't think the crystal ball clause applies. Quack 688 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Explain how this meets "well documented" - two countries are documented, and the other six have no documentation at all. You have an article that states eight countries/regions might have an interest in placing a bid. Very definition of crystal ball. Why not write an article that the United State might have interest in the 2023 Cricket World Cup, because interest in Cricket in the U.S. might increase by then. Citicat 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- So we can't find any public information that Argentina's considering a bid? Fine, then delete Argentina from the list. Same for the others. That leaves us with Japan and Scotland, which have both made statements on the public record that they're considering a bid. Turn the article into a stub with just those two. As more countries get into the bidding process for what is one of the largest international sporting events in the world (behind the Soccer World Cup and the Olympics), we can add them into the article - with proper sources, of course. Quack 688 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Explain how this meets "well documented" - two countries are documented, and the other six have no documentation at all. You have an article that states eight countries/regions might have an interest in placing a bid. Very definition of crystal ball. Why not write an article that the United State might have interest in the 2023 Cricket World Cup, because interest in Cricket in the U.S. might increase by then. Citicat 14:27, 28 December 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.
