- 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 redirect to Cricket World Cup. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
2031 Cricket World Cup
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2031 Cricket World Cup ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON for an article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Bangladesh, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Very much WP:TOOSOON for this one. TH1980 ( talk) 01:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nope, it is a confirmed future event. Hosts are decided. You dont delete the future olympics games pages do you? Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article. But, not even the teams participating in
2027 Cricket World Cup qualification has been completely announced yet. So, It's definitely
Wikipedia:TOOSOON for 2031 Cricket World Cup.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @
Vestrian24Bio, I'm not sure I've seen a written rule that says At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article before. That would be pretty awkward for sports championships, because the participants are often not known until days before the event. Is this your own (good) advice, or an actual rule that other editors have formally agreed to?
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, I am trying to point out that, there is no significant coverage available as for now to have its own article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- @
Vestrian24Bio, I'm not sure I've seen a written rule that says At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article before. That would be pretty awkward for sports championships, because the participants are often not known until days before the event. Is this your own (good) advice, or an actual rule that other editors have formally agreed to?
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article. But, not even the teams participating in
2027 Cricket World Cup qualification has been completely announced yet. So, It's definitely
Wikipedia:TOOSOON for 2031 Cricket World Cup.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would tend towards redirect to Cricket World Cup. Future events in **cricket** are rather more likely to end up being cancelled or changed than in other major sports in my experience. Given the little we know about the event, that can be summarised perfectly well at the CWC article - the article currently has four sources, one of which is very brief (abplive) and two of which address this tournament very briefly indeed - basically dealing with it along with a bunch of other prospective tournaments. The Hindu is then partially paywalled but appears to do more of the same from what I can see. I looked for news sources myself, but the majority of what I got was simply dealing with broadcasting rights - I didn't spend ages doing this but given that the 2027 article has a total of five sources, of which four are identical, I'm not hopeful that there's very much more out there just yet. Both have identical statements about "Points Carried Forward" that I can't find any source to verify - this has tended to be a feature of this sort of article at this sort of stage I'm afraid. In these circumstances and for *this* tournament and in the light of WP:OSE, I'm of the view that it's too early in this case for a dedicated article. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- See man one of the ct in 2021 got cancelled but others usually dont, and main world cups never will. they have been going on for decades and the bids have beend decided also. The page lets people know about the coming future tournaments, where its happening and how will it happen etc. If you check the cricket wc page, you will see that the formats which were identical are out, so thats not a worry. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, and the page as it is will be rapidly edited as the tournament comes closer. This can also have its own talk page being active so that it can stay for long till 2031. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 11:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Cricket World Cup WP:TOOSOON, however a WP:ATD exists. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- It can't be improved by editing for now, as there isn't anymore information available yet.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
13:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirecting without deletion is itself an
Wikipedia:Alternative to deletion. It is not necessary to delete the page history to redirect it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirecting without deletion is itself an
Wikipedia:Alternative to deletion. It is not necessary to delete the page history to redirect it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- It can't be improved by editing for now, as there isn't anymore information available yet.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
13:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete WP:TOOSOON Leoneix ( talk) 12:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect as a sensible WP:ATD. It's WP:TOOSOON, as no tournament information is known, and won't be known for a while yet. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Even the format isn't actually confirmed, sources on the format are about 2027 edition, not the 2031 edition: [1]. We shouldn't be reporting this as fact when it's WP:OR/based on assumptions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I **think** some aspects of the format apply to both 27 and 31 - although it's not super clear. The paragraph above the first diagram in the article ("The ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup format will have...") seems to suggest this. I don't think it supports some of the supposition, but there are other elements that seem to be verifiable - assuming a) they mean both 27 and 31; b) they don't change their minds; c) the ECB doesn't try to change everything after the current mess; d) the ICC don't decide that this one is too long anyway. It doesn't leave us with much of an article if we remove the guesswork at the end - maybe 8 lines, some of which is padding anyway. We could write a decent paragraph about it just now, but not much more to be honest Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- At first it was announced that the Future tournaments will have the same format as 2023 CWC. But, It was later announced that 2027 CWC would have a new format. So, can't be sure about what will happen for 2031. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. That's annoyingly vague - I imagine that 2031 might well be effected by what happens in 2027 as well. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not to ignore the fact that various discourse has been expressed by many about the longevity on the ODI format itself! I sincerely think this article might be propagating unclear/undecided information. 2402:E280:3D3D:4C8:55BB:5396:DE45:A50 ( talk) 13:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This page may not be deleted. ICC had made an official announcement regarding this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthi2705 ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (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.
- 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 redirect to Cricket World Cup. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
2031 Cricket World Cup
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2031 Cricket World Cup ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON for an article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Bangladesh, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Very much WP:TOOSOON for this one. TH1980 ( talk) 01:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nope, it is a confirmed future event. Hosts are decided. You dont delete the future olympics games pages do you? Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article. But, not even the teams participating in
2027 Cricket World Cup qualification has been completely announced yet. So, It's definitely
Wikipedia:TOOSOON for 2031 Cricket World Cup.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @
Vestrian24Bio, I'm not sure I've seen a written rule that says At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article before. That would be pretty awkward for sports championships, because the participants are often not known until days before the event. Is this your own (good) advice, or an actual rule that other editors have formally agreed to?
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, I am trying to point out that, there is no significant coverage available as for now to have its own article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- @
Vestrian24Bio, I'm not sure I've seen a written rule that says At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article before. That would be pretty awkward for sports championships, because the participants are often not known until days before the event. Is this your own (good) advice, or an actual rule that other editors have formally agreed to?
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article. But, not even the teams participating in
2027 Cricket World Cup qualification has been completely announced yet. So, It's definitely
Wikipedia:TOOSOON for 2031 Cricket World Cup.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would tend towards redirect to Cricket World Cup. Future events in **cricket** are rather more likely to end up being cancelled or changed than in other major sports in my experience. Given the little we know about the event, that can be summarised perfectly well at the CWC article - the article currently has four sources, one of which is very brief (abplive) and two of which address this tournament very briefly indeed - basically dealing with it along with a bunch of other prospective tournaments. The Hindu is then partially paywalled but appears to do more of the same from what I can see. I looked for news sources myself, but the majority of what I got was simply dealing with broadcasting rights - I didn't spend ages doing this but given that the 2027 article has a total of five sources, of which four are identical, I'm not hopeful that there's very much more out there just yet. Both have identical statements about "Points Carried Forward" that I can't find any source to verify - this has tended to be a feature of this sort of article at this sort of stage I'm afraid. In these circumstances and for *this* tournament and in the light of WP:OSE, I'm of the view that it's too early in this case for a dedicated article. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- See man one of the ct in 2021 got cancelled but others usually dont, and main world cups never will. they have been going on for decades and the bids have beend decided also. The page lets people know about the coming future tournaments, where its happening and how will it happen etc. If you check the cricket wc page, you will see that the formats which were identical are out, so thats not a worry. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, and the page as it is will be rapidly edited as the tournament comes closer. This can also have its own talk page being active so that it can stay for long till 2031. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 11:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Cricket World Cup WP:TOOSOON, however a WP:ATD exists. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- It can't be improved by editing for now, as there isn't anymore information available yet.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
13:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirecting without deletion is itself an
Wikipedia:Alternative to deletion. It is not necessary to delete the page history to redirect it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirecting without deletion is itself an
Wikipedia:Alternative to deletion. It is not necessary to delete the page history to redirect it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- It can't be improved by editing for now, as there isn't anymore information available yet.
𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (
ᴛᴀʟᴋ)
13:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete WP:TOOSOON Leoneix ( talk) 12:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect as a sensible WP:ATD. It's WP:TOOSOON, as no tournament information is known, and won't be known for a while yet. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Even the format isn't actually confirmed, sources on the format are about 2027 edition, not the 2031 edition: [1]. We shouldn't be reporting this as fact when it's WP:OR/based on assumptions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I **think** some aspects of the format apply to both 27 and 31 - although it's not super clear. The paragraph above the first diagram in the article ("The ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup format will have...") seems to suggest this. I don't think it supports some of the supposition, but there are other elements that seem to be verifiable - assuming a) they mean both 27 and 31; b) they don't change their minds; c) the ECB doesn't try to change everything after the current mess; d) the ICC don't decide that this one is too long anyway. It doesn't leave us with much of an article if we remove the guesswork at the end - maybe 8 lines, some of which is padding anyway. We could write a decent paragraph about it just now, but not much more to be honest Blue Square Thing ( talk) 16:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- At first it was announced that the Future tournaments will have the same format as 2023 CWC. But, It was later announced that 2027 CWC would have a new format. So, can't be sure about what will happen for 2031. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 ( ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. That's annoyingly vague - I imagine that 2031 might well be effected by what happens in 2027 as well. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not to ignore the fact that various discourse has been expressed by many about the longevity on the ODI format itself! I sincerely think this article might be propagating unclear/undecided information. 2402:E280:3D3D:4C8:55BB:5396:DE45:A50 ( talk) 13:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This page may not be deleted. ICC had made an official announcement regarding this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthi2705 ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 November 2023 (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.