Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FIFA Club World Cup/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

FIFA Club World Cup[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawaiifive0 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most important club competition internationally. The quality of the article was an inspiration to start updating football articles in relation to Costa Rica's and I believe it is long overdue for a FA status. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have the article's main editors been contacted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, they have. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To be fair to the nominator, of the three editors ahead of him in the article's edit count, two are permanently blocked and the other hasn't edited this article for five years – or Wikipedia at all since May. So I think the nomination is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article has not had any improvement from its previous nomination (and reaffirm my opinion about it at the time). Furthermore, most of this article is based on a crazy conspiracy theory categorically rejected by all who read it outside Wikipedia, except this user, its author, who himself claims having wrote this article. Finally, all "history" section is biased and an original "research" gives the impression that the tournament had over 100 years old when the organizer gives it the right dimension: a young competition with just 11 editions Including Maroc 2014. Having said that, this article must be completely rewritten with a NPOV tone before being evaluated.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to start reviewing this article but I would really like to get more information about this oppose. Dantetheperuvian, do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim that "most of this article is based on a crazy conspiracy theory" or indeed that the article isn't written from an NPOV? I'm interested in the nominator's response as well, but I'm not too optimistic considering they have barely edited in the last month. --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A serious article presents this competition as what it really is: a youth tournament with just 14 years of existence (11 of effective life due to a turbulent past ignored by the article's most active editors) that explains seriously why not was disputed in 2001 altrough it was scheduled by FIFA and why was scrapped until 2005, when FIFA decides to program it in the way it does the organiser in the link before published (sorry, but "due to a combination of factors, most importantly the collapse of FIFA's marketing partner International Sport and Leisure" is not enough). Mention the remote past is irrelevant for purposes of article and becomes unnecessarily heavy for the reader.

The article is biased due in it is exposed a—excuse me, utterly stupid—conspiracy theory, the own author publishes it also in this link and summarized in this: FIFA always wanted to create a World Club Cup but the "evil" UEFA/CONMEBOL axis rejected it, so the author decides to downgrade the tournament organized by both confederations to level of "friendly" (see the tone and the quotes used in this section), editing insistent and periodically also that article, here, here and here to impose his theory (to cite the most recent editions), altrough be an official competition for FIFA (cf. p. 60) and here, UEFA (p. 99) and CONMEBOL (pp. 99; 107) and, at the same time overestimate the new competition as the holy grail for any football side. For that reason I wrote than this article—or, at least, that sections—must be rewritten with a NPOV style limited to the facts and not on assumptions have no echo in any decent publication.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.