Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 FIFA World Cup qualification


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. Whether these articles are kept, merged, or redirect is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to apply admin's descretion and Redirecting 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification (UEFA) and 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification (OFC)to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification because these articles contain absolutely no information whatsoever: they are just empty scoreboards. 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification (CONMEBOL) apparently contains a list of countries that will compete there. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup qualification
Also:
 * 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification (UEFA)
 * 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification (CONMEBOL)
 * 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification (OFC)

All these articles contain no information. The qualification has not yet started, and no information is available from FIFA as to distribution of berths of format of the continental tournaments. (I suspect the article are based on assumption that the next qualification will have the same format as previous.) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Conscious 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You've disrespected the process. It has already been discussed. Kingjeff 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is the first AfD for this article. This is the initial discussion of this matter. There has been minimal, if any, in the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT a Crystal Ball. What are you on about!!?! there are no predictions made on this page that are undue. It simply explains the qualification procedure. You cannot use that not a crystal ball card against all future events, if there is a format for the tournament laid out (which there is, as it can be taken that it will be the same as this year, unless said otherwise) you can respectably say what it will be the next time the tournament takes place.  Philc  TECI 20:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: How about we delete every single stub in Wikipedia? Kingjeff 15:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per crystal ball comments. The articles can be recreated when they are required.   (aeropagitica)    (talk)   14:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: sure, the articles should be recreated, but only when some information is available. Only write an article when you have an article to write. Conscious 14:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not a crystal ball -- MrDolomite 14:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Conscious. Wickethewok 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep But the page does have some information and the info doesn't show anything that might be a "crystal ball". Kingjeff 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a crystal ball, but it's far too soon for talking about the next World Cup qualification. There's nothing known for now, let's wait for the events to happen first. --Angelo 15:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article says, "In the qualification process for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, Teams from the six FIFA confederations will be allocated a share of the spots available on the basis of the strength of the confederation.

The final round will consist of inter-confederation matchups for the last two spots. Typically, playoffs are between CONCACAF and CONMEBOL and between OFC and AFC."

Do we not know that all 6 confederations are going to be represented at the next world cup? Do we not know there is a qualification stage? Do we not know that there will be inter confederation matches? Since we all know this, how is this a crystal ball? Kingjeff 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well... how do you know all this? If you provided a reference confirming it there would be something to put into an article. Conscious 15:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: OFC page and the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification doesn't mention how many teams are going in from any confederation. If you want to argue crystal balling, look at 2010 FIFA World Cup under teams and talk about it at Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup. Kingjeff 21:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * These articles are too short. I would Merge the lead intro section of 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification to 2010 FIFA World Cup. Then I would redirect all of the pages to 2010 FIFA World Cup for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Conscious, take a look at FIFA World Cup qualification under current format. With the exception of the breakdown of the 32 spots, it's accurate. Kingjeff 15:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There are changes to the make-up of the confederations (Australia=>Asia) and who knows how that will be handled by FIFA. The OFC page even notes that "the winner of the 2 leg playoff will probably face the 5th place team from South America". That is blatant crystal-balling. The draw for this tournament won't be taking place for eighteen months or so, and none of us here know exactly how many teams will be in each European group, the exact format of the OFC qualifiers, etc., etc. It's all guesswork - informed guesswork, but still guesswork. --DaveG12345 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for the last three articles, which are completely placeholder articles and can easily be recreated when qualification starts in a few years. Just a regular delete for the main qualification article, which really has no information not already in FIFA World Cup qualification. BryanG(talk) 20:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Coredesat, please explain how this is crystal balling? Kingjeff 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was pure speculation when I made my argument. This article still isn't needed, as it's something that will take place four years from now. It can wait. --Coredesat 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:There was no speculation at all. I personally deleted all the speculation. Kingjeff 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep main, redirect confederations. With all of these pages, the question is not if they should exist but when they should exist. I think it is a little premature to be doing detailed pages on each confederation's qualifying results; once games begin, that's when they'll be appropriate. Accordingly, redirect the UEFA, OFC and CONMEBOL pages listed above to the main page (per ZZyzx11). However, the main page can serve as a gathering point for that information as it becomes available. The fact that there are confederations changes, for example, is worthy of inclusion there (Australia going from OFC to AFC). As slot allocations become known, they can be gathered on this page. Therefore, keep the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification main page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep main, redirect confederations as per above. I agree too premature for most articles related to the World Cup, but if we can have a 2010 Winter Olympics article, I think it's fair to have one for the next World Cup. 23skidoo 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete At the very best, these are templates which can be easily recreated when there is encyclopaedic information available. At the moment, there is not. -- Alias Flood 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: But that is only for the confederation qualification templates. What about the main page? If we keep at least the main qualification page, it'll be easier to recreate the confederation page. Kingjeff 00:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom Hbdragon88 01:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, therefore there is no reason to delete it, as it will become very relevant. Philc  TECI 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Philc and Kingjeff Yonatanh 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep main, redirect confederations per cfred. Inner Earth 11:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. theres not one shred of beef in this stub as written. with this precedent we could have a population of thousands of articles regarding long distantly future sporting events? why not start the Baseball World Series 2102 now? i could write a more substantive stub on that subject right now. Joan-of-arc 19:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentNO MORE REDIRECTS!They are not a very good thing.--71.142.74.164 06:25, 7 October 2007 (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.