Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uruguay v Ghana (2010 FIFA World Cup)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. There is a consensus that this match does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uruguay v Ghana (2010 FIFA World Cup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The notability of this subject is contested. While there are many references in the article, few of them relate to this game in particular, and even fewer of them refer to the match in any historical context. Most of the content is routine news reporting, something that every game receives, regardless of its long-term notability. We only ascribe automatic notability to major tournament finals, any other games have to prove long-term notability, which this game does not. – PeeJay 10:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 10:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not a notable match, not by a long shot. GiantSnowman 10:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Suarez handball is already covered on his own page no need for this game to have its own page. BadSynergy (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Article really about that one event. The rest is really nothing special to earn a separate article (ie Final etc). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This really does not need an article. Thomas85753(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable match, no indication of significance by reliable sources. – Kosm1fent 12:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sources do not indicate lasting notability, match is covered in enough detail at 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. NapHit (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why is it supposed that football matches require "lasting," "long-term" or "historical" notability, above and beyond the normal GNG threshold? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because pretty much every game gets broad coverage from numerous sources at the time when it is on, but only a few games get long-term, lasting coverage. This allows us to keep the number of match articles manageable. – PeeJay 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That way lies madness indeed and hatnotes like "This article is about the match between Gillingham and Wycombe Wanderers on 21 August 2012. For other matches between Gillingham and Wycombe Wanderers see Gillingham vs Wycombe Wanderers (disambiguation)" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that a WC quarterfinal is comparable to a league game that is played twice a year. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting it is, but Clavida chauchat seems to be suggesting that any game which meets the GNG is potentially deserving of an article, which would basically cover any professional-level match. That's the point I was trying to make.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that a WC quarterfinal is comparable to a league game that is played twice a year. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the article on the 2010 FIFA World Cup. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we do not really need separate articles on any specific matches in any world cup finals except for the finals - we can just have details on other specific matches merged with the article on the particular world football final. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Meets GNG. Significant coverage worldwide from reliable secondary sources.
- This game is notable because it was a WC knockout round game that ended in a shootout. The ending was especially dramatic because the outcome was changed in the last minute of extra time. In a tied game, a player blocked the ball with his hands to save what clearly would have been a goal and a loss, and then his team ended up winning. This handball incident is consistently linked to Uruguay/Ghana (and the country)/Suarez. This consistent mention goes well beyond routine coverage (e.g., the Argentina – Germany game in the same round). Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? Where is the long-term historical significance? Of course there will be mentions of the handball from time to time whenever Suarez is involved, but there's nothing to suggest that the entire game is notable. The only reliable sources in the article either relate to the tournament as a whole or are contemporary to the game, which is not indicative of a truly memorable game. – PeeJay 16:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't read anything that requires an article have long-term historical significance or even be memorable. I've only read that it must be notable. There is nothing written about notability criteria regarding matches at WP:Footy. The WP:SPORTSEVENT requires it to be "considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. ... 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches ...)." Routine coverage is a simple match report and article the day after the game. Everything above that (multiple articles from the same publisher, extra commentary) and the repeated mention of the game internationally (outside Uruguay and Ghana, the local teams involved) indicate that it is notable. Otherwise why keep mentioning non-notable events?
- The 2009 France–Ireland games (cited in that SPORTSEVENT precedent) are analogous to this game. They (or maybe just one) had extra coverage because of Henry's handball, which cannot be separated from the games (or game?). Strafpeloton2 (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the requirement for long-term significance is implied by the notability criteria, which state that any coverage of the subject must go beyond the routine. Since most of the sources referring to the game are routine, i.e. written merely because the game happened, not because anything particularly special happened, you need to provide sources that show lasting notability. And by the way, we're not talking about the France v Ireland games, per WP:WAX. – PeeJay 12:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally, many of the sources are related to routine coverage. But many isn't all of them, and the rest demonstrate the notability. For example, after the game Ghana wanted to change the rules about comparable handball incidents; discussion of changing the rules is not routine. Articles mentioning the game the following year aren't routine. All the extra international commentary about the handball incident doesn't happen following a handball in a Gillingham–Wycombe Wanderers games; that's not routine.
- My interpretation of WP:WAX is that I shouldn't claim the Uruguay–Ghana game should exist because random game article X versus Y, which may or may not be notable, exists. But I disagree that the article on the France–Ireland games is a random game article that may or may not be notable. I used that one because it appears to me to be a standard by which to compare the notability of games, since it is explicitly stated in the WP:SPORTSEVENT examples of what games are notable. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how far did those discussions about rule changes go? How reputable are those sources that mentioned the game one year on? How many sources do you think will mention the game in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? I'd be willing to bet that the number will decrease dramatically as time goes on, and since notability is not temporary, it'd be a stretch to say that this game is really that notable. I would probably argue that the France-Ireland game doesn't meet notability criteria either, but that's not for here. – PeeJay 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they didn't change the rules, but the point is that there aren't too many games that lead to even discussing rule changes either. I think the Liverpool Echo, Fox News Latino, Daily Monitor and The Barbados Advocate are reputable. I can't predict how many sources will mention the game in the future, but I bet the number of mentions increases the next time Ghana or any other African team makes it to a similar WC stage, or as a comparison for controversial WC incidents or late heartbreaking losses, or if Suarez does something controversial. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how far did those discussions about rule changes go? How reputable are those sources that mentioned the game one year on? How many sources do you think will mention the game in 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? I'd be willing to bet that the number will decrease dramatically as time goes on, and since notability is not temporary, it'd be a stretch to say that this game is really that notable. I would probably argue that the France-Ireland game doesn't meet notability criteria either, but that's not for here. – PeeJay 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the requirement for long-term significance is implied by the notability criteria, which state that any coverage of the subject must go beyond the routine. Since most of the sources referring to the game are routine, i.e. written merely because the game happened, not because anything particularly special happened, you need to provide sources that show lasting notability. And by the way, we're not talking about the France v Ireland games, per WP:WAX. – PeeJay 12:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? Where is the long-term historical significance? Of course there will be mentions of the handball from time to time whenever Suarez is involved, but there's nothing to suggest that the entire game is notable. The only reliable sources in the article either relate to the tournament as a whole or are contemporary to the game, which is not indicative of a truly memorable game. – PeeJay 16:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP:SPORTSEVENT per the sources provided by Strafpeloton2 in this AfD. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - merely one of hundreds of World Cup matches. 2.26.51.191 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:SUBARTICLE. No talk page consensus to take the action taken. Also, while a fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own, that is for a representative survey of the relevant literature, not for every detail that can be sourced to a reliable source. For example, one sentence of the new article reads, "In the 58th minute, Gyan's had a low shot to the near post saved by Muslera." The sentence after that is "Five minutes later, Forlán crossed to Suárez for a volley, but Suárez missed wide." These are not major facts or major details, but instead minor facts and minor details. That falls into WP:NOTDIARY - news reporting about ... sports ... can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every ... goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included. I hate to request that all this hard work be deleted, but that is required. The main article 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage is sufficient to cover the topic and you should get a talk page consensus first before pursuing a WP:SUBARTICLE. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You can find thousand of sources for any football match, but that doesn't mean that it is notable. In other words, it lacks long-term notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:53, 30 August 2012 (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.