Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England v Germany (2000)


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

England v Germany (2000)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails notability criteria for sports events. It was just an another qualifying game. Armbrust Talk  Contribs  14:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - two potential claims to fame, neither of which serve to show lasting notability. Being the last game at Wembley merits nothing more than a mention on the Wembley Stadium (1923) article (which it already is), and being the manager's last game in charge isn't notable either - it happens all the time! GiantSnowman 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. This match does no appear to be independently notable. Useful content should be merged to appropriate articles if it isn't there already. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the title were a likely entry, I'd suggest a redirect to England and Germany football rivalry, but it isn't (it doesn't even indicate what sport), so delete as not particularly notable. Kevin McE (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that anyone looking for this title would be expecting a tiddlywinks match. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, which basically requires significant lasting impact and coverage. Keegan's resignation is one example of impact. Another is this - silly, perhaps, but still relevant. As for lasting coverage: although you wouldn't know it from the current article, there's no shortage. See this, this, this, this and this, all offering significant coverage and all written several years after the game. With these taken into account, the case for deletion is limited. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And on the topic of WP:Sports event, that guideline refers only to which sports events are inherently notable. Games that pass the remainder of WP:EVENT can still be notable without meeting it. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alzarian, do you think that the game is of particular notability, or its aftermath, or both? I presume we agree that not every England qualifying match is notable. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The game and the aftermath combine to meet WP:EVENT by some margin. Sample quotes: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." - Keegan's resignation. "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." - covered in depth on a least six occassions. "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." - received coverage at worst ten years after it took place. "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable." - covered at national level by at least four news services, some on more than one occassion, and internationally by ESPN. So while the vast majority of qualifiers are non-notable, this seems to be an exception. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keegan resigning after this match does not make the match notable - any more than every other match preceding the resignation or dismissal of any national team manager. And yes, this match was covered by international news services...as are all qualifiers. Routine sports coverage of a general nature. -- Club Oranje T 11:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, I'd agree with you, but unlike most resignations, this one was directly prompted by the very nature of this match, something Keegan was (reasonably) clear on. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Al. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alzarian's discussion with me, above. --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Rename issues may be pertinent, but are not for AfD - aside from the irrelevance to the process, I once renamed an article while it was at AfD and it causes no end of trouble with the various links and logs --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete On the one hand, I think it could be credibly argued that the match is notable, and there is a case for saying that this match should remain in the interests of countering systemic bias. On the other, the main rivalry article has considerably more qualitative detail about the match than this one does. That suggests that what is worth writing can reasonably be included there. As I say, I'm leaning in the direction of deletion, but I don't think policy or guidelines are that strong in either direction. —WFC— 11:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Match itself is not notable... it is just another football match. The fact that it was the last match at the old Wembley Stadium (1923) stadium is it's only claim to fame, and it is already covered in the stadium article. -- Club Oranje T 11:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alzarian16. From those sources, the match clearly has enduring notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing notable about this, you see stadiums close all the time so the fact this was the last game at Wembley isn't that big a deal. BUC (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one is arguing that it should be kept because it was the last game at Wembley. Every keep argument so far has been based on reliable sources, lasting impact and WP:EVENT. All of those would still apply if it hadn't been the last game. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bucs, this seems to be the key discussion for keeping --Dweller (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - Already covered on the old Wembley and England and Germany football rivalry pages. Doesn't seem notable enough for a seperate article. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The match has historical significance as the final match at the old Wembley Stadium, and perhaps less so as Keegan's last as manager of the England national side. Coverage long after the match confirms that this comfortably passes WP:EVENT. wjemather bigissue 12:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Frankly, that deletion rationale of 'just another game' could win an award for Understatement of the Year. While much of the coverage can be considered part of wider topics - Wembley history, Keegan's bio, England Germany rivalry, if coverage like this seven years after the game doesn't count as EVENT suitable in depth coverage of the game, as a notable game in its own right, then I don't know what does frankly. Yes, it's not the 1966 World Cup Final, but it most certainly isn't considered by reliable independent sources to be just another entirely forgettable qualifier either, not in a million years. MickMacNee (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep match was a notable event as confirmed by the number of sources on it after the event, as shown by Alzarian above. Eldumpo (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2011 (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.