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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - Starblind16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Bfigura(talk)16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and merge to FIFA World Cup#Economic impact. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/e19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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/e19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. CelarnorTalk to me06:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.