Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 World Aquatics Championships

:{{la|2021 World Aquatics Championships}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_World_Aquatics_Championships Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|2021 World Aquatics Championships}})

WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This event is still six years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Frivolous and time-wasting AFD, since the article already documents notable events of the bidding, and city selection.
• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Pan American Games Geo Swan (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, in this year, the host will be selected. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Week keep - I think two cycles into the future is about right for article creation for future championship events. The FINA championships are biennial (i.e., are held every two years), and they alternate between long course world championships held in odd-numbered years, and short-course world championships held in even-numbered years. Are these AfDs being held now "frivolous and time-wasting" as suggested by Geo Swan above? No, not at all -- we just deleted a future events article for the 2032 Summer Olympics, and the Olympics are a heck of lot more significant on the world stage than the FINA or IAAF championships. We're simply going through the process of determining what's reasonable in terms of article creation for future sports events. The fundamental takeaway is that we should be very cautious about creating articles for events more than six to eight years in advance, and for world sports events below the Olympics there is not nearly the advance coverage that might justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.