Deletion of 2034 FIFA World Cup

Comment: per  and . Newspapers reporting that some countries have interest in submitting a bid is nothing but speculation, and an article about an event 16 years in the future is clearly either  or a serious lack of . Special:Contributions/198.84.253.202|198.84.253.202
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:FANCRUFT||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: The topic has received significant coverage from numerous Wikipedia:INDY|independent, Wikipedia:RS|reliable sources on the bidding process making it notable and passes  even if we destroy the world, a higher being ends life on earth, we're invaded by aliens or any other reason why it doesn't happen
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Although the evebt is set to take place after 16 years. The regular coverage about the subject makes it pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: We already have 2026 FIFA World Cup and 2030 FIFA World Cup. Why? Because they have been notably reported as future events, even though they are some ways into the future. One can check out the articles for details and sources. The 2034 FIFA World Cup has taken on substance through similar media reports and FIFA members' activity, specifically on the geopolitical, diplomatic level: Asian nations are already moving in for a collective bid. So, the subject's already |notable. And everyone should be aware that FIFA's world cups are affairs of an always '''very long term nature
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: ping|Sportsfan 1234}} did you mean to nominate based on , or did you intend to nominate based on 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL||WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: as . I don't understand the nominator's argument either. However, an article about an event 16 years in the future defies . I can understand having an article for the world cup in 2022, at least the location has been selected already, but everything in this article is speculation (see ). Countries have another 8 years to decide if they even want to submit a bid. I'd also support a selective merge (along with content from the 2026 & 2030 article which also should not exist) into something like Future World Cup bids
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:COMMONSENSE||WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: or '''Merge''' to FIFA World Cup: WP:!vote|''!voting''' '''is not a headcount''' against or in the face of broad community consensus and . This is actually pretty funny. The deadline for filing is 2026 but something '''16 years away''' is notable how? It flies-in-the-face of |'''What Wikipedia is not''' in so many areas that includes |future events, |indiscriminate collection of information, or NEWSPAPER|newspaper reporting because it is far . If the '''2032 U.S. presidential election''' and '''2040 Summer Olympics''' are examples of what is not acceptable for future events, or even the '''250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026''' (found in ) then we are trying to just WP:slippery slope|slide down a slope that we can now include 2040 content, then 2050-60-70. Because there is |other stuff does not give precedence for exemption over broad community consensus that is even included in the |five pillars. Because there are news reports of events does not make them inherently acceptable for inclusion. An exception would be that the title and content improves Wikipedia. That would be an acceptable exclusion but that has not been argued and would be dubious. Anything else is just an attempt to open the door for "anything can be included with a source". This would not be so bad as we could stop having AFD's and just fill Wikipedia with anything
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:FUTURE||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:TOOSOON||WP:OTHER||WP:FIVE||WP:policies and guidelines)

Comment: If you are only concerned about  or , it is better to draftify (move article to draft space), or we will waste time in a few year to recreate it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:BALL)

Comment: It's already being discussed in multiple media articles and passes . This should only be deleted if ''if nothing can be said about it that is verifiable and not original research,'' which it can currently
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)