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 Delete. Nakon 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Trade Soccer[edit]

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

This is a somewhat difficult nomination for me. There are indeed a few sources in the article. But all but one appear to be non-independent sources. This could also potentially be merged to fair trade, but either way I can't see this really needing a separate article. Also, the article seems to have some POV issues so should the article be kept, these need to be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom, there are POV, OR & Notability issues. The author seems to be also using it as a way of re-introducing his Senda athletics and Botas (company) articles (both A7, G11, G12 earlier today). The continued focus on this topic also raises potential questions of COI. Bazj (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- whilst I think it is probably a good cause, I don't believe that it is notable, and the article itself is too POV. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my arguments for notability are that there are separate pages for fair trade bananas and fair trade coffee. there is less information available to me for fair trade soccer, but i still think the topic is important. the issue of POV is difficult for me to assess, but any necessary adjustments would be welcome. i dont have a conflict of interest other than i would like to increase awareness of fair trade in soccer. Kruno Skaric (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedic text, and the sources are of questionable encyclopaedic worth. – Pee Jay 13:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fair trade There are clearly several fair trade organizations whose sights are set on the sports equipment industry. Perhaps not sufficient independent sources for a standalone article, but certainly enough for a section: Fair trade#Sports equipment and apparel. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (potentially) Smaller newspapers to Forbes have several articles related to a couple of the emerging companies. Google Scholar and Books provide many related hits. Most of it appears to be about the balls with Pakistan receiving attention. A lot needs to be done regarding MOS (the capitalization in the title jumps out) and better sources. The text would likely change to reflect those sources if given the chance. Alternatively, a redirect to fair trade along with adding a paragraph to the chile labor in Pakistan article could be sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - to Fair Trade. Looks like there is some reliable information here worth a paragraph in the main article, but soccer is a lot more than just boots and balls, so not sure what other areas of the sport could be addressed by this article. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I definitely agree with the above statement. I previously wrote Keep, but that's because I'm new to this. A merge to fair trade is more appropriate and would even help increase awareness. A lot needs to be done to improve the article, but I have to admit that I lack the necessary skills. Kruno Skaric — Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete nothing worth merging. The article Fair trade does not discuss every product to which the term can conceivably apply. WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Same reasons as DGG, the Article has more on child Labour in Pakistan then on the subject Bentogoa (talk)

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.