Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Cricket 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was to keep the article. Denelson83 03:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

2011 Cricket World Cup
Textbook crystalballery. Right now, it's unsourced speculation about a future dispute (which has yet to arise, as far as I can tell) over the location of an event six years in the future. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just to make it perfectly unambiguous: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Why isn't this a criteria for a speedy? / Peter Isotalo 21:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the development of this debate shows exactly why it isn't, and should never be, a speedy. Xoloz 17:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As the article makes clear, it's just become a very important dispute in the world of cricket politics. See for example. I should add that since we were both on IRC at the time, and I explicitly mentioned this article as one that did have substance, I'm surprised you did not discuss the matter with me rather than list this article for deletion. I'd have happily explained the point, jguk 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any comments to that effect in IRC; granted, I was busy quibbling over the merits of assault rifles at the time. If this is the only relevant fact and preparation won't begin for years yet, why is this not a minor mention in Cricket World Cup? Why is even documented speculation about a future dispute meritorious of a standalone article? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I have pruned the most speculative parts of the article. What remains would be hard to source, as it is undoubtedly common knowledge in cricketing circles. I would recommend the addition of a source for "it came to the media's attention that the Asian nations, led by India may put in a bid that almost certainly would be able to outvote Australia's claim instead". While this is certainly true, it would help to have a source. [[Sam Korn ]] 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Arg, Jguk (and now Sam!), you beat me to it! Here's my site .  Of the latest news when I looked at this site 4 of the lead stories (out of 15) where about the 2011 World cup.  It seems like a big deal.  --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * weak transwiki to Wikinews? Seems like it MAY be appropriate there... Roodog2k  (Hello there!) 21:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant here, since it is clear that this event is going to take place and much of the palnning and jockeying for votes has already started. It's fairly big news in several parts of the world already, and Cricinfo regularly has quite a bit of news and information about it. Grutness...  wha?  00:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an event that will certainly happen, and is currently big news because of the political wrangling taking place over it. -dmmaus 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Grutness. Carioca 01:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: we have Football World Cup 2010, so the fact that it's a number of years away falls down. And as others have said, this is an argument of considerable importance in cricket politics, since the increasing influence of the subcontinental countries is in itself a story - enough so that anyone who reads Cricinfo (ie most cricket followers) will be reading a good deal about it. Loganberry (Talk) 01:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Grutness. This event really will happen, which means it's not just blind prognosticating. PacknCanes 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, see 2016 Summer Olympics (venue to decided). The 2011 Cricket World Cup will happen, it's only a question of where. -- Ian &equiv; talk 03:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep an event that is likely to happen, so it isn't a crystal ball thing. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; controversy is real, sourced, and a matter of some international interest. "Crystal ball" would be if the article attempted to assert or predict the actual outcome. MCB 06:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: real event, real row going on, no crystal ball required. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nuff sed. ---Peripatetic 08:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Tintin 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per points made above.--Vivenot 16:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grutness. Xoloz 17:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete 2011 is just a wee bit too far in the future. I mean, really, 2011? that is half a dozen years from now. One or two years is perfectly fine, but 6? Again, very strong delete. Masterhatch 10:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Masterhatch, your point is undermined by the fact that there are articles for the 2012 Summer Olympics and 2016 Summer Olympics.--Vivenot 17:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into a broader article on cricket politics. Cool3 04:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's going to happen, just like other upcoming major sporting events. --A bit iffy 12:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - the content of the article should be changed, but the article itself should still exist, as qualification has already begun --DavidEdwards 15:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Lots of good information for Cricket & Sport lovers. Bwfc 23:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - It doesn't matter how far it is in the future. If it is being discussed about now, then an article is written about it now  Da Gizza  Chat (c) 11:03, 17 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.