Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA Two

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. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Two

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. It was, like any other small scandal, covered by some press coverage, but not nearly enough for it to be anything significant to have its own article. The article is basically all just copy-pasted from other sources, with potential copyright violations, and does not provide an in-depth analysis of what happened. It is also not written in accordance with most Wikipedia standards. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my read, the applicable guidelines here are WP:NEO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:LASTING and WP:COPYVIO.

In terms of NEO, there are more than a few reliable/verifiable sources which refer to the term "FIFA Two". (Including The Times (UK), RTÉ, Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Irish Independent, Wales Online.) So I don't think we can delete on the basis of the term being a neologism.

In terms of SIGCOV, there are more than a few reliable mainstream news sources which deal with the topic in some depth. (Irish Examiner, Belfast Telegraph, Irish Times, RTÉ, ESPN, etc.) So I'm not sure I could support deletion on SIGCOV basis.

In terms of LASTING, to counter any WP:NOTNEWS concerns, there appears to have been sustained coverage (after the fact) of the "FIFA rule change" that was precipitated by the events.

In terms of COPYVIO, I don't understand this argument. Not only could any content issues (like the questionable editorialsing in the "precedent" section) be fixed rather than the article deleted, a check using Earwig's Copyvio Detector suggests that the only materially "copy/pasted" text is the two extracts from the FIFA rule book. Both of which are quoted text. That doesn't really fall within the scope of COPYVIO.

Personally I'm not seeing (or perhaps just not following) the argument for deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like 2007 Cork City transfer delays. If there were a better redirect target than Cork City F.C., I would support a redirect. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Guliolopez. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giuliolopez. Giant Snowman 19:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.