Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economics of the FIFA 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep. Needs work, but not deletion. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Economics of the FIFA World Cup

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopedic essay article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete One giant paragraph Czolgolz (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It's a homework assignment from a class. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  See also Fifa world cup impacts on the economy. --John Nagle (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this may be a decent article with some work. It lists sources, but is formatted terribly. Some wikification, paragraph breaks, a little paint . . . Tnxman307 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - I've put in some section headers and paragraph breaks to help with the readability. Tnxman307 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Give the article a chance. It seems to have one or two adequate references. I also find that, nominating the article just five minutes after it was created is attempting to make a point. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nagle. I feel that the article's claims are original research. Keep per changes made.  I apologize for not checking the timestamp to see when the page was created before voting - should have given it some time.  Also, article is duplicated at Fifa world cup impacts on the economy and I've AFDed that too.  It looks like there is a discussion here, so I propose that this article be the site for discussion on this topic and delete the other if this one goes or redirect the other to this one if it stays. Staeiou (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear example of the sort of article our policies against original research exist to protect us against. Could it be cleaned up?  Maybe, but it would require almost a 100% start-from-scratch rewrite and even then it would be better as a paragraph in the main article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel sorry for the students. Their professor, who ought to have more of a clue, made them do this.  They write typical student essays on their assigned topic, and the whole administrative machinery of Wikipedia descends on them.  It's not the students' fault. Still, these are essays, not Wikipedia articles. At best, the topic rates a paragraph in World Cup. --John Nagle (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. It's not valid to delete for formatting flaws or even stylistic ones unless the article is hopeless or patent nonsense and I don't think this one necessarily is. It also has some decent refs. In any case, I see that D.M.N. and Tnxman307 have now vastly improved it. I also agree with D.M.N. about the potential pointiness of nominating all the 'imperfect' Globalecon student articles within minutes of their appear‎ance. (Even though that 'project' is most ill-conceived) Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Even aside from any other consideration, AfDing anything but vandalism or attack pages four minutes after creation is obnoxious.   Ravenswing  16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise when nominating this that it had only been up for four minutes. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend checking next time.   Ravenswing  16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. I've also fixed the offset in my time settings, which wasn't helping. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This appears to be on a notable topic, and doens't have any unfixable NPOV or OR flaws. While some of these articles have really deserved to be deleted, I think this one can be fixed up. B figura  (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and merge to FIFA World Cup. I'll recuse myself from admin actions here. I think the topic is not worth a whole article, though it can certainly be a part of the larger FIFA World Cup or similar article. That said, the section on Africa should be removed per WP:Crystal ball. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that the Africa section looks ahead, but it does cite sources for its speculation. I feel like this may be different than a case of an unreleased CD or movie or something of that nature. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete original research --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How? I see references on that page, so how's it OR? Yes, there needs to be more refs, but it's almost certainly not all original research. D.M.N. (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because its WP:SYNful. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. Yes, the tone is off.   Yes, there's some WP:SYN in here.   Yes, some parts read like an essay.  However, overall, the subject matter is notable and encyclopedic and the article is not beyond repair to resolve its problems.   -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Can be fixed, notable, not a NPOV matter, and this AFD starting at 15:48, 1 May 2008, four minutes after the article was posted at 15:44, 1 May 2008, is absurd. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see Larry has acknowledged it was too soon to nominated. We need a software way to stop that happening... no article should be AFD'd until its been up at least x minutes, like 60, or 120... Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a great way to run afoul of numerous other policies, like SPAM and BLP, to set an arbirtrary amount of time such articles MUSt exist, and be accessible to the masses. ThuranX (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. One could imagine this becoming an encyclopedia article (though it may eventually be merged into a parent article.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've just done some cleaning up. There are references and so on, though there should be more.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge, per Rifleman 82, supra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop Secret (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as homework, not article. Fails OR and SYNTH as well. ThuranX (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shinmawa and Lawrence. X Marx the Spot (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep current revision notwithstanding, it seems to me like a notable topic. Needs improvement, cleanup and wikification, not deletion.  The fact that it's a homework assignment is irrelevant.  Celarnor Talk to me  06:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly needs improvement, not deletion. Also, apart from real rubbish articles should be given some time before deletion is suggested. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Excellent article, needs a criticism section for NPOV, such as the MasterCard stitch up and the mass selling of TV rights to Koesh(sp?), iirc there were rumblings of an EU competition enquiry. Anyway, on the nomination, I wish any of my homework assignments had been this detailed. Articles get improved around here, not graded. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Notable. Not a hopeless start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.129.135 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - vastly improved since it was nominated for deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is starting to turn into a snowball. D.M.N. (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly has RS, could use more citations. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2008 (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.