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 both. NW (Talk) 01:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rugby World Cup[edit]

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

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Surprisingly enough, the Rubgy union powers-that-be have awarded a contract for the 2019 World Cup already, so an article on that topic is entirely appropriate. Everything in the articles about 2023 and 2027, however, is pure speculation that could not possibly be supported by reliable sources because such sources do not yet exist. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing at this point to say about either of these. Recreate when there are reliable sources discussing the world cups. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and page protect until there is something notable, reliable and verifiable to say. Completely agree with R'n'B's rationale about 2019. WFCforLife (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is, namely the hosting of 2019, and 2015 which will affect both of these RWCs. The IRB does plan ahead you know. At the rate we're going, we're not going to be allowed to write about next month.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need to go farther than actually contracted which is with three future events already farther than for many other sports. Anything new that is reliably sourced should actually first be added to Rugby World Cup and branched out once fit. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really? A article on a sports event that won't happen for 18 years (if it happens at all)? Way too prematures, per CRYSTABALL, maybe in 10 years. TJ Spyke 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above post by TJ Spyke was originally in a section referring to the 2027 event only.[1] I've modified the layout of this page to indicate that is one nom only for both articles. TJ, you may want to add a view on the 2023 event.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2023 for the same reason. TJ Spyke 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both When you have nothing to say, create a placeholder. The 2023 article is bad enough, but the 2027 Rugby World Cup? Which elementary schools are the future Australian national team members attending? Mandsford (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC):[reply]
This nom is about both, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I realized that as soon as I clicked on the other article. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both waaaaaaaay too early to start talking about either tournament. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no rush to make articles about tournaments that won't happen for 18 years. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - absolute rubbish to claim that nothing can be reliably said about 2023 RWC. The venue for the 2019 RWC has ALREADY been decided, and the venues of 2023, and 2027 will both be decided on the basis of the last three or four hosting nations. Most of you obviously don't know anything about rugby anyway.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. Who comes up with corny terms like "Crystal" anyway? It would have made more sense to keep the future template on the article. Oh wait, some bureaucrat deleted that didn't they?[reply]

For what its worth I've been going to Saracens semi-regularly for ten years. On topic, nothing about 2023 can reliably be said. While it's reasonable to assume, the bidding process hasn't even begun, and its yet to confirmed that its even happening. Your sole justification for keeping the article is that we know where 2015 and 2019 are being held. Ingeniously, we have articles on 2015 and 2019, neither of which insult readers' knowledge of the sport. WFCforLife (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that, instead of offering reasons to support your views, you (MacRusgail) find it necessary to insult those who disagree with you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulting anyone, I'm criticising bureaucratic stupidity. True, not much can be said about either of these RWCs - but I'm not exactly reading tarot cards here, or looking into a crystal ball. You don't need divination, you just look at the past record of the International Rugby Board, which alternates venues between the northern and southern hemispheres, and has been doing that since the first RWC over twenty years ago. Unfortunately, some numptie went and deleted the future event tag without bothering to consult many people, so that's out of the window too. Very clever.

By the way, WFC, if you are going to Saracens games, then I respect your opinion more than that of all the non-rugby fans here combined. But I did say most of the people voting here don't know anything about it, other than the dates of the events - and that I really can't respect. I've already had to stop some Argentine editor from deleting various international tours to Argentina as "non-notable" - I wish people would do their research first.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2027, Keep 2023 - simply that if people are speculating on something, the speculation itself is surely worthy of an article. I mean, we have 2020 Summer Olympics, 2018 Winter Olympics, 2018 FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro 2016 and UEFA Euro 2020 articles. Yes, I know my argument is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFF but on the other hand, if speculation is rife, should that not itself warrant an article? --Tris2000 (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source concerning speculation about a 2023 World Cup? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the hosting records of the RWC going back over twenty years! --MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is used far too often, far too dismissively, and generally by people who would rather hide behind a policy than discuss the merits of their arguments (which in itself is against policy). You raise a reasonable question about other sports. Taking each example in turn:

2020 Summer Olympics has official confirmation from many of the potential applicants that they will be bidding for the 2020 Olympics. Parts of it are a bit trivial for my tastes, but it makes a much stronger case than the 2023 RWC.
The 2018 Winter Olympics bidding process is officially underway, with the candidate cities confirmed.
It's a very similar story for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, with the candidates officially announced, and an official process underway.
Again, UEFA Euro 2016 has a concrete bidding process underway.
Finally, UEFA Euro 2020. If I had my way I would delete it. But putting that to one side, the Bulgarian and Romanian bid is sourced to some extent. I've got know way of telling whether the sources are speculative or official, but even if they're speculative it's still more than the 2023 Rugby has. WFCforLife (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for going to the trouble of commenting on these. You've given it more thought than I have, so I'm beginning to be persuaded that perhaps both rugby ones could be deleted after all. Tris2000 (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With sentences such as "It is speculated that South Africa, Ireland and Scotland (joint), Australia, Italy, Argentina and possibly the United States and Russia may bid to host the event" and "The chances of a South American bid are very strong given that..." pretty much mark this for me as a clear WP:CRYSTAL case. Once some more specific information is determined, then sure, by all means create this. But so little has been specifically and unequivocally determined at this point. Let some time pass for certain aspects of this event to be confirmed. After, there is no deadline. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:47, 30 October 2009 (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.