Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid

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 redirect‎ to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids without prejudice against selectively merging some content. There is rough consensus not to keep the article as is, and a redirect is a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid

[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)

Nominating based on

talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mexico, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids is also valid. Svartner (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The same (withdrawn bid) appears to happen with
South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Svartner (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge both
South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids — ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say",^[1] and that "[the South Africa] bid could've won had they not withdrawn and deserves to stay as an article."^[2] The first argument ignores how said info can fit comfortably in the bid article, and the second is an unsubstantiated claim. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep – There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia, even for previous Women's World Cups. To say this bid article isn't notable is ridiculous because it was an official bid, had its own bid book and gained a lot of media attention from many publications in and outside of the US and Mexico. The Mexico–United States section on the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page is bare and has a map that is terrible and lacks any detail, which makes it virtually useless since it doesn't even display what city and stadium it is talking about, it's just arrows. When you compare the map to the one on the Mexico–United States bid page, there's no comparison. Just type in Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid on Google and you will find a plethora of articles talking about it. It couldn't be more notable if you tried. That tiny paragraph and map does not give a bid that could have won justice.

AFC Vixen
you have just criticised my opinion with an opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but the way you have written it is like you're saying my opinion isn't even valid.

What I hate on Wikipedia is when people essentially delete history and interesting facts. This is deleting history and facts. Do not be trigger happy when deleting articles that people have put effort in. Some article can be terrible but this article is pretty good. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia" is a textbook
WP:SPINOUT from 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids, and it can easily fit there instead. I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of "deleting history and facts" either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
While the map is slightly better than I thought, It's still way worst than the one on the Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid page. Also you took one part of my detailed reply which makes many valid points and think you have proven a point by only talking about one tiny aspect of my long reply. You didn't talk about my Google argument, the bid book argument or even the media attention argument. You talked about the only thing that you thought you could make an argument on. You are trying to invalidate my opinion by saying buzz words like unsubstantiated and put me down which I don't respect. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Make arguments with absolutely no facts and put up links and write it like you are better than the other person.

Let's take the Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics for example, a withdrawn bid that is very notable.

You didn't say: "The reason why the withdrawn
WP:WHATABOUT
argument on me and calling it a day. But that's not an argument. In my opinion, it's really unhelpful.

I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of deleting history and facts either Personally, I think they are substantiated to an extent because you did delete info from the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page under the guise of Cleaning the article up and massively cut down on fluff, but you can do both. You seemingly can't take my opinion without putting me down. I can take your opinion, but what I can't take is people fobbing me off with Wiki links with no proper facts or points behind their argument. You have no moral high ground if you put me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a
WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I did give you evidence. That's my point. My argument wasn't just "well other articles exist like it", I gave numerous points about how the article deserves to stay on its on own merit and all you did was throw a
WP:WHATABOUT on me. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to Mexico–United States 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Given that the same bid is just being moved to a later edition, it makes more sense to just keep the same article and modify it as needed. Note that the 2027 bid was withdrawn very very late in the process, so there would have been enough coverage for it to have a separate article at some point. Sounder Bruce 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is something that I have thought about as well. This could work too. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per SounderBruce. Everything still seems relevant and notable, just pushed back. -2pou (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per Svartner. Giant Snowman 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map. I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Just looking at references in the article, I don't see the sources that justify keeping a separate article.
WP:THREE sources clearly establish notability. Shazback (talk) (belated signature - following reminder by Liz
below)

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2017/11/7/16616540/us-soccer-president-candidates-saying-women-uswnt		? Blog published by SBNation, unknown if Stephanie Yang is a reliable matter expert	Passing mention that Carlos Cordeiro believes the US should host the 2027 world cup	✘ No
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/13/2026-world-cup-usa-mexico-canada/			Passing mention that the US Soccer federation is planning to bid for the 2027 world cup	✘ No
https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/us-soccer-now-considers-bidding-for-2031-womens-world-cup/	~ Paywalled article - appears independent, but unclear as the content is not available	? Seems to have never been addressed in the reliable sources noticeboard	? Paywalled article - the primary content based on title & lead is a tentative bid for the 2031 world cup	? Unknown
https://justwomenssports.com/ussf-bid-host-2027-2031-womens-world-cup/		? Not in the reliable sources noticeboards	Very article basically relaying multiple times a short quote from USSF president Cindy parlow Cone	✘ No
https://www.infobae.com/america/deportes/2022/06/21/mexico-buscara-ser-sede-de-la-copa-mundial-de-la-fifa-femenil/			~ Really stretching to include it as significant, at best there are two paragraphs (137 words total) that are related to a potential 2027 bid	~ Partial
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2023/04/us-soccer-and-mexican-football-federation-will-launch-joint-bid-to-cohost-2027-fifa-womens-world-cup	US Soccer Federation website			✘ No
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2023/12/us-soccer-mexican-football-federation-submit-bid-right-to-host-2027-fifa-womens-world-cup	US Soccer Federation website			✘ No
https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/390c06917bd0f7a2/original/New-Heights-WWC27-Bid-Book-USA-Mexico.pdf	Publication by the US & Mexico Soccer Federations, hosted by FIFA			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing a consensus here so I'm giving this discussion another relist. Could we get a deletion sort for Women or Women's Sports, too? I think we need a few more participants here. Also, the source analysis, which isn't signed, was offerred by User:Shazback.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to

WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect per Liz, Shazback, others. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:00, 23 May 2024 (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.