Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA Approved

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 merge to History of association football balls. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Approved[edit]

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

I don't see how this term could be a notable concept for an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Then you can't have looked very hard. Google Books and Scholar turn up plenty of sources. I've added a couple. Melchoir (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of association football balls and rename Association football balls. Certainly encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted. However, there is unlikely to be enough material available to justify a full page let alone two. The history page is aready more than a history and we have scope for an excellent, unified article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bridgeplayer. The article for Football (ball) seems to encompass everything called a football. No matter how hard you look, all it shows is that FIFA, the sport's official body, sets standards for a ball used in competition. Every sport and league has standards. Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant info as per Bridgeplayer; topic probably deserves a mention on Wikipedia but not as a seperate article. Giant Snowman 11:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I kind of agree that this is more of a note than an article. I think what Bridgeplayer mentioned seems to work best. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2009 (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.