From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

List of FIFA World Cup stadiums

AfDs for this article:

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

List of FIFA World Cup stadiums (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content has been copied off from every World Cup article, all this information is is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK from 1930 FIFA World Cup, 1934 FIFA World Cup and so on to current day, We already have all this information across all the World Cup articles. It doesn't make any sense to repeat all that information in one article when you can get exactly the same information on each world cup page. The article hasn't been improved and it's still a mess since the last AfD, I still fail to see any decent rationale to keep this article. WP:ARTN Also applies. Govvy ( talk) 14:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a contested speedy keep closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 20.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There was an overwhelming consensus that this was a notable list per WP:LISTN at the previous AfD. I'm not sure what has changed in a mere 5 months since the previous discussion that could possibly lead to a change in consensus, but regardless, the 2 points raised to support deletion add nothing to the previous discussions for the following reasons:
  1. It is a content fork: this is not relevant as this is a list. By definition a list will contain content also covered in other articles. This is not a reason for deletion. The nomiator needs to show how the subject of world cup stadia has not received sufficient coverage to satisfy LISTN.
  2. There has been no improvement of the article. The rebuttal here is simple - AfD is not cleanup. Fenix down ( talk) 11:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down ( talk) 11:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Fenix down: At what point of content fork don't you understand? This whole list is a complete straight copy of content we already have on wikipedia, you can't do that, it's bad form of Copy-Effect it's a copyvio within contribution. There is massive issue here that people are not understanding. If people want to list the stadiums used in a list article then I suggest a whole new article. Not one ripped of other peoples work which is already processed on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 14:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm well aware of what a content fork is, what I'm confused by is your deletion rationale, you seem to flip flop from one argument to another. If there are elements that have been copied from other WP articles then they should be attributed properly. That is an issue for the editorial process. Again, AfD is not clean-up. Can you please expand on why you think that this is not a notable topic for a list. That is the only thing we are discussing here. Fenix down ( talk) 15:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I've been pretty clear on my argument, all this information about stadiums is at every World Cup page... None of the information has been remove from those pages, I don't understand why you think that it's acceptable to copy all that information and dump it into one article without reviewing the structure. Govvy ( talk) 15:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
It's perfectly possible to have information in more than one place, particularly if aggregated into a list. I get it, you don't like the structure, you disagree with some of the content and there are issues around attribution. None of these things are things AfD is set up to deal with. Do you have an argument concerning the notability of the subject matter per LISTN? If so, please state it. If not, it would be best for you to withdraw the nomination, go somewhere like WT:FOOTY and look for some assistance into creating a better list. Fenix down ( talk) 15:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Snow is when everyone agrees to something, if one person says delete, that's not a snow effect. Also GNG asks for significant independent sources for GNG. Govvy ( talk) 16:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
a simple google search shows a vast amount of coverage on world cup stadiums as a subject on its own, obviously the top results are for 2018 and 2022, but there's plenty going back in time. Fenix down ( talk) 17:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
How is a discussion disruptive? Govvy ( talk) 17:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
See WP:DEADHORSE or Flogging a dead horse; even a polite discussion can be disruptive. No opinion from me on whether that's the case here. Nyttend ( talk) 17:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:LISTN. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The point of a list is to group a batch of articles that share a significant characteristic and (sometimes) to provide basic information about the articles' subjects. "List of football stadiums with eighth-level concession stands" is trivial, but "List of football stadiums that have hosted World Cup matches" (to which this amounts) is greatly significant. If you're providing basic information about the subjects, the list is necessarily going to include information from the linked articles — that's good. In fact, the ability to provide information about the listed articles is a major reason we still have lists instead of relying only on categories, since categories can't provide any information about the articles that they contain. Nyttend ( talk) 17:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Rationale is fatally flawed. You can have something be a content fork of 1-2 articles, but you can't have something be a content fork of 20 different articles. The topic easily passes notability guidelines. p b p 21:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as article was almost unanimously deemed keepable last AfD. As an aside, rather than worry over whether a second AfD is a bad faith action, I feel the community is best served allowing this AfD to run the full 7 days, as should it run a full 7 day AfD with (presumably) a nearly unanimous 'keep' verdict, it will be less controversial to call a third AfD on this article disruptive. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 05:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:LISTN. MarnetteD| Talk 20:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the topic is notable. I hope this article over time becomes more useful and relevant to the topic. It could include a sortable list, but a list alone would not be the best use of the namespace. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 20:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or create a new article I was looking at Govvy's contribution list and came across this, I never knew how this process works exactly, but I decided to look in to what he was going on about. Govvy is exactly right, to copy all that stadium information into one article is really bad form. You wouldn't see a company like DK, Collins, National Geographic who create books repeat the same information again on another page, why would you create an article, word for word, picture for picture. This is terrible form and shouldn't be done. 31.127.199.226 ( talk) 11:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - you seem to fundamentally misunderstand firstly what a list is for and secondly that WP is not a print encyclopedia. Neither of your arguments address the notability of this subject. Do you have any comments regarding notability? Fenix down ( talk) 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Strike these content Hhkohh ( talk) 06:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What the fuck is this, just because I didn't think people understood last time and I simply only wanted to try and put this to AfD again to see if people changed their minds at all. I personally finding these attacks at me sickening, I wish people would understand procedural elements of wikipedia and let the system work instead of this power hungry admins with lack of policy understanding along with poor etiquette. Hhkohh, I wouldn't bother going to DRV again and found it offensive that you would think that. Govvy ( talk) 17:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Hhkohh Please strike your remark about the nominator and your second comment. It's an unnecessary personal attack which does not WP:AGF. SportingFlyer talk 06:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per pretty much everyone who has already contributed to this AfD. This is a well written and encyclopedic article and doesn't quite fit into the category of being a content fork. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I would support keeping the concept of the article, but it needs to transclude these sections from the event articles, rather than being a copy and paste of the text. If the same material is presented in both places it should use transclusion to ensure any edits are applied to both pages rather than having small changes to both pages accumulate and drift. Ideally the list would be a big table of all the venues together to be sortable rather than just a collection of galleries. Reywas92 Talk 21:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but... the format is not appropriate. Simply copying the content from the individual World Cup pages doesn't make sense, and this should be redone as a table. – Pee Jay 11:01, 3 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FIFA_World_Cup_stadiums_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079286874"