Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids without prejudice against selectively merging some content. There is rough consensus not to keep the article as is, and a redirect is a sensible ATD. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nominating based on User:AFC Vixen's edit summary. The bid has been withdrawn, thus failing WP:GNG any relevant information can be moved to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids LouisOrr27 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. LouisOrr27 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mexico,  and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete – Per nom. Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids is also valid. Svartner (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment – The same (withdrawn bid) appears to happen with South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Svartner (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map. I don't see a consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge both Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids — ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say",undefined and that "[the South Africa] bid could've won had they not withdrawn and deserves to stay as an article."undefined The first argument ignores how said info can fit comfortably in the bid article, and the second is an unsubstantiated claim. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia, even for previous Women's World Cups. To say this bid article isn't notable is ridiculous because it was an official bid, had its own bid book and gained a lot of media attention from many publications in and outside of the US and Mexico. The Mexico–United States section on the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page is bare and has a map that is terrible and lacks any detail, which makes it virtually useless since it doesn't even display what city and stadium it is talking about, it's just arrows. When you compare the map to the one on the Mexico–United States bid page, there's no comparison. Just type in Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid on Google and you will find a plethora of articles talking about it. It couldn't be more notable if you tried. That tiny paragraph and map does not give a bid that could have won justice.
 * AFC Vixen you have just criticised my opinion with an opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but the way you have written it is like you're saying my opinion isn't even valid.
 * What I hate on Wikipedia is when people essentially delete history and interesting facts. This is deleting history and facts. Do not be trigger happy when deleting articles that people have put effort in. Some article can be terrible but this article is pretty good. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia" is a textbook WP:WHATABOUT argument, and there are indeed city and stadium names on the interactive map; perhaps we could add a "Click the square to enlarge" or similar phrasing to the caption to make that clearer to readers. Again, there just isn't enough content here to justify a WP:SPINOUT from 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids, and it can easily fit there instead. I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of "deleting history and facts" either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While the map is slightly better than I thought, It's still way worst than the one on the Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid page. Also you took one part of my detailed reply which makes many valid points and think you have proven a point by only talking about one tiny aspect of my long reply. You didn't talk about my Google argument, the bid book argument or even the media attention argument. You talked about the only thing that you thought you could make an argument on. You are trying to invalidate my opinion by saying buzz words like unsubstantiated and put me down which I don't respect. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Make arguments with absolutely no facts and put up links and write it like you are better than the other person.
 * Let's take the Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics for example, a withdrawn bid that is very notable.
 * You didn't say: "The reason why the withdrawn Budapest bid is notable and deserves to be an article but the Mexico–United States bid doesn't is because..." You are just throwing a WP:WHATABOUT argument on me and calling it a day. But that's not an argument. In my opinion, it's really unhelpful.
 * I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of deleting history and facts either Personally, I think they are substantiated to an extent because you did delete info from the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page under the guise of Cleaning the article up and massively cut down on fluff, but you can do both. You seemingly can't take my opinion without putting me down. I can take your opinion, but what I can't take is people fobbing me off with Wiki links with no proper facts or points behind their argument. You have no moral high ground if you put me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But I did give you evidence. That's my point. My argument wasn't just "well other articles exist like it", I gave numerous points about how the article deserves to stay on its on own merit and all you did was throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Move to Mexico–United States 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Given that the same bid is just being moved to a later edition, it makes more sense to just keep the same article and modify it as needed. Note that the 2027 bid was withdrawn very very late in the process, so there would have been enough coverage for it to have a separate article at some point.  Sounder Bruce  22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This idea is something that I have thought about as well. This could work too. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and move per SounderBruce. Everything still seems relevant and notable, just pushed back.  -2pou (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above per Svartner. GiantSnowman 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Commment Just looking at references in the article, I don't see the sources that justify keeping a separate article. WP:BEFORE shows a lot of articles relaying (generally with a limited amount of re-writing) a press release by the US Soccer Federation on April 29th 2024 announcing that they have withdrawn the bid for 2027 and will bid together for 2031. Similarly, there are a good number of articles relaying the announcement of the bid by US Soccer on Dec 8th 2023 and April 19th 2024. Excluding these however does not reveal many sources. One I did find is by the Washington Post : Why FIFA should look past U.S.-Mexico bid to host 2026 women's World Cup, but I would be interested in what WP:THREE sources clearly establish notability. Shazback (talk) (belated signature - following reminder by Liz below)

Relisting comment: Still not seeing a consensus here so I'm giving this discussion another relist. Could we get a deletion sort for Women or Women's Sports, too? I think we need a few more participants here. Also, the source analysis, which isn't signed, was offerred by User:Shazback. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids. As the source analysis from Shazback shows, this subject does not contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV from independent RS to meet the WP:GNG. Let&#39;srun (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Liz, Shazback, others. signed,Rosguill talk 14:00, 23 May 2024 (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.