- 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 1998 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No need for a list of each and every channel that showed the matches of the 1998 FIFA World Cup. It is (almost) never the individual channel that has the rights, but their parent company. And often even these have sub licences. The Banner talk 17:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This could easily fit within 1998 FIFA World Cup#Broadcasting, but even then, this needs to be completely WP:TNT'ed; this article asserts every broadcaster in every nation had the local rights to the World Cup when usually only one or two broadcasters do (CBS has never carried World Cup coverage and as far as I remember, ESPN carried the Cup in 1998 with ABC only airing the Final in the US, not NBC and CBS also). Remove this falsehood of an article, or really work on making it accurate in the next seven days. Nate • (chatter) 21:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perfectly valid list of notable entries on a notable topic. Compare with this list, for example. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The main difference is that the 2014-list only mentions the parent companies that will broadcast the games. Not each and every channel. And certainly not an excessive number of completely useless links ([1]) that needed to be fixed. The Banner talk 19:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- At that, this list from the beginning is written in a bizarre type of present tense that makes no sense for a tourney that occurred thirteen years ago. This edit for instance said it was on radio stations existing in the Grand Theft Auto games universe, and again unless required by their federal law, there's no circumstance where the broadcasters in one country are ever broadcasting every match of every part of the tournament because that's a basic waste of broadcasting and fiscally irresponsible. This is not a serious list. Nate • (chatter) 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SBS TV in Australia has shown all matches of the 1998, 2006 and 2010 tournaments. Hack (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Nate, I see no reason to have a separate article. GiantSnowman 12:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The main article is already 75 kB, which according to WP:SIZERULE probably should be divided as it is. Adding another 7 kB doesn't seem to be the right approach. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You think that keeping an unreliable article is a better option? The Banner talk 11:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the difference between keeping the article, and putting unreliable content in another article. If there are concerns about issues with the content, then fix and source. Nfitz (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Each WC has article about broadcasting rights. See Category:FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights and ((FIFA World Cup)). NickSt (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The main difference is that the other lists don't have a reliability issue... The Banner talk 11:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See for an example of the non-reliability of the article this edit The Banner talk 14:03, 24 January 2014 (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.