Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada v Mexico (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification)


 * 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 20:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Canada v Mexico (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As per, "No coverage since the week of the game, does not appear to meet WP:LASTING".  Onel 5969  TT me 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Mexico.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG. Upset victories are not uncommon, and there isn't something special about this one. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 15:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Keep per below. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 07:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF third round per my prior edit summary comment. signed,Rosguill talk 18:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm surprised by and  that there has been no coverage since 2021, given how frequently this game is still discussed. There was even significant coverage in Brazil only a few weeks ago, over 1-year after the match. There's also been many brief mentions recent in written media internationally, such as The Globe and Mail, The Sunday Times of London, and The42 in Irelend. Perhaps we can hear further thoughts from those two editors? [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz] (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding these sources. I can't access the Sunday Times article but the rest are already enough for me to flip to keep. signed,Rosguill talk 03:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree with the nomination, and I can access The Times, that is a good article. Govvy (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.