Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)


 * 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. There is substantial support for keeping or merging the content on this page; editors can discuss possible merge targets on the talk page. Despite arguments for violations of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RECENTISM, consensus doesn't side with these concerns, arguing that the coverage of the event goes beyond the routine. The article is very well sourced, and there is evidence that the events of the match are having an impact beyond the immediate aftermath. p.s. I'd like to plug the proposal WP:EVENT that addresses this kind of article. Fences &amp;  Windows  16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seriously, can people stop creating articles about this game? There's already precedent on not having articles the day after a controversial refereeing decision was made. (This could be considered a sister AfD with "Hand of Frog") chandler 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I was on my way to do this myself. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 13:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. chandler 13:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original PRODder. If a 'controversial' refereeing decision is enough for a game to be notable, we would have to write about half of the Premiership's games on a weekly basis! GiantSnowman 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I said on the Hand of Frog AfD, this game'll be gone and forgotten soon. This match was no more notable than any other game affected by a bad no-call.  Bettia (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I do not think that this satisfies any football-related guidelines. Plus, per sister controversy above.Boeing7107isdelicious 14:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, it was a bad decision (but that's me putting it lightly, seeing as I'm half-Irish), but there's absolutely no need to have an article for every game with a "controversial" refereeing decision. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with reasons stated above. -- AyaK (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh the weather outside is frightfulWP:SNOW..." --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this match will deservedly get a brief mention in the Republic's article "failed to quality after falling to france in a match that controversially turned on a Thierry Henry handball." Otherwise, notnews.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete One day, an academic somewhere will publish a paper on the evolution of impotent rage from letters to the editor of the local paper to creation of (sub-)encyclopaedic articles.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. The snowball grows and grows... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Echoing previously stated sentiments. Warrah (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No !vote, just a note to any passing admins to say permission is granted to consider a snow delete here.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (later) Disregard that! :)— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Another pointless shotgun Afd which shows that Wikipedia is utterly clueless when it comes to properly documenting significant current events, which almost alwasy get an Afd tag slapped on them within minutes. Not a single person here is in any position to judge the historical notability of this game. However, anybody who knows football knows that this was no run of the mill bad decision, or routine news. Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final is certainly no precedent for such a World Cup controversy. It is only the second day and this is already a diplomatic incident between France and Ireland, so for people to suggest this is a SNOW delete is frankly astounding, and you have to wonder if anybody here really wants people to write articles at all. If this wrongly gets deleted with such innappropriate haste, please userfy it for me, I'll at least make sure that if it cannot be an article right now, and we have to wait while Wikipedia catches up with what is and isn't significant in the world of football, then at least the hard work of others is not wasted and can be merged elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, but characterizing it as a "diplomatic incident" is outrageous. If the Ireland would happen to recall their ambassador to France, you could label it as such, but let's not get carried away by personal feelings.  Grsz 11  18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very much agree with comments above by MickMacNee. BigDunc  19:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it as the match has transcended football onto the political stage. Not to mention the large amount of coverage in the media. --Bill (talk 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Expand. Can any of the Delete !voters explain how this hasn't expanded beyond routine coverage of sporting events? There's a considerable difference here between typical coverage of a bad referee decision, and coverage of this match, which has invoked discussion by world leaders (which doesn't happen after every handball). That is far beyond routine and so invalidates the WP:NOTNEWS argument for deletion. --Bill (talk 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Was front page news the world over, most definitely notable. Google news search for Theirry Henry for the past 24 hours gives 14,000 occurences. http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?um=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=Thierry+Henry&cf=all&as_qdr=d&as_drrb=q By comparison, new EU president Herman van Rompuy gets less than 10,000 http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?um=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=Herman+van+Rompuy&cf=all&as_qdr=d&as_drrb=q--Richy (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. One of those arguing to keep the article has given the key reason why the article cannot, yet at least, be retained: "Not a single person here is in any position to judge the historical notability of this game."  To be included in an encyclopaedia, an article must have subject matter that can be demonstrated to be notable.  If something substantial changes as a result of this, if the very unusual event of a re-match is mandated, then I would wholeheartedly support its re-instatement, but until then, it is a match with a controversial decision, that had more impact than most such matches, and proportionately more press coverage, but (as of now) no more than that. Kevin McE (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is, you earlier compared the notability to nothing but "letters to the editor of the local paper". I don't know about you, but I am quite sure the comparison to the Hand Of God is not thrown about lightly in football circles, and there seem to be plenty of external sources already elevating this incident to that level of noteriety, even if you don't. And I don't remember the Hand of God match ever being replayed, or it resulting in any substantial changes either, so I remain bemused as to what you would ever consider as a notable match. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent me. My (slightly tongue-in-cheek) comment was on the availability of Wikipedia as a vehicle for the indignant to voice their ire, a role previously mainly served by "letters to the editor". As to the suggestion that comparison to "Hand of God" is not widely chucked around, I would observe that it is mentioned in almost every handball-goal or goal-line block: it is a stock response of unimaginative, cliché-constipated journalists.  This match will apparently not be replayed, and there is no clear reason to believe that it will result in any change (even when/if the change happens, I doubt FIFA will specifically attribute their leislation to this match), so the case that this match is notable, rather than simply topical, remains to be made. Kevin McE (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got no idea what crappy papers you read (and you will note there are few if any tabloid sources in this article), but Hand of God is most certainly not chucked around willy nilly in every report I read of games with goal line incidents. And you seem to forget the fact that, this is not just a parroting of the term, people are actually giving in depth analysis - 'was this a worse example of cheating than the hand of God or not', 'will Henry's name be forever tarnished in the same way Maradonna's was?'. The use of the term here is not a tabloid throwaway comparison, and the article is in no way analagous to indignant letters to the editor, tongue in cheek or not. The match is already easily notable, suggesting that FIFA would actually have to order a replay to make it so pretty much ingores how infrequently that ever happens anyway, and the fact that the original Hand of God match wasn't even replayed, and didn't lead to any rule changes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not try to personalise discussion by speculating about my choice of newspaper. I can assure you that it is by no means from the tabloid end of the market. Kevin McE (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You stated a personal opinion as if it were fact, somebody else stating that they have the exact opposite experience is not 'personalising' the debate. Once again, I am all ears for some evidence of these claims. Any evidence at all that the phrase Hand of God is thrown around for any old handball incident, by non-tabloid papers. MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting more and more out of line. "The match is already easily notable". You keep repeting that, but fail to provide any evidence. Anyone who has followed international football for a few decades have seen it all over and over again. "suggesting that FIFA would actually have to order a replay" There is no replay, nor has a replay been considered by FIFA. Disgruntled fans and players often shout for replays, that's not notable either. And any speculations about "Henry's name" is just a mild breeze in comparison to what was written about Ronaldo in the last World Cup or about Beckham in the World Cup 1998.Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In base my assertions of notability based on the relevant guideline, and the evidence is in the article!. Your continual comments are plain old personal opinions, and when asked to actually support them with some evidence, you go very quiet, or pretend you didn't hear the question. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course my comments are personal opinions, so are yours. You really seem to love to argue just for the sake of doing it. And no, I don't go quiet but you post so many utterly irrelevant comments here that it's hard to keep track of them all. Where was there any question I missed?Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but just no. Pointing to a relevant guideline and pointing to the evidence to show how the article should not be deleted, is frankly not in the same league of personal opinions when compared to your various pronouncements on what you know about football and the media etc etc and thus why your opinion of the article overrides policy. As for unanswered questions, they are everywhere. They usually follow one of your claims that 'X is the same as Y' or 'A so therefore B' which come with no supporting evidence whatsoever. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're talking about my frequent comments about that there have been several other similar cases and thus this is not new nor notable. Of course I could go back and find articles in archives about all the controversy about Ronaldo and the referee when Portugal sent England home, or the controversy about when Barcelona beat Chelsea, or the controversy when Egypt forced a replay against Algeria, or the controversy when Beckham was sent off against Argentina. However, I think anyone with an interest in football will remember them, so I don't see the point of linking to them in a discussion. They are just a few of the many examples of the fact that results in sports are sometimes controversial, but not notable in the long run.Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very handy for you then. Because I am sure everybody will just trust you, and will assume that in everyone of those cases, presidents and prime ministers discussed the matter, associations lobbied each other and FIFA for replays, that the result was as significant as losing a place at the world cup, that comments and analysis came from far and wide, from presidents to politicians to philosophers, and that the news covered the globe for days, with repeated updates, and that each of theses incidents was universally compared and contrasted to the most notorious example of football cheating in the history of football. As if. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A recent event that has caused a lot of emotions, but of very little importance. By definition, every game in a world cup is more important than a qualifier, and we don't have articles on every single match. The fact that it made headlines is, in this case, irrelevant. Major games in sports usually make headlines without being notable in the long term, and this is hardly the first game involving a controversial call. The only "argument" against deleting this article seems to be MickManNee's attack on Wikipedia editors not sharing his view. That is a non-factual argument.Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are totally ignoring the one thing that makes this game different to every other game, which is why it has made all the headlines. It is totally wrong to suggest that this game is being asserted as notable just because it was played. It is totally wrong to suggest that just because normal Finals games are not given articles, that this game is somehow procedurally not-notable. I have given a factual argument, have you? Your view seems entirely subjective, and doesn't reflect the content one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per MickMac. Massive amount of coverage. This controversy is only one day in and its a bit early to be pulling the trigger on it.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  — G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as it has become political. It is clearly emotional but when you have Irish and French ministers exchanging comments on the incident that is more unusual. The LA Times also gives an idea of some of the coverage this incident has received. It is even being discussed in Australia. The player has also been compared to "the great Diego Maradona", although I am not sure of the importance of this. FIFA insider: "There is no way the game can be replayed. 'To do so would cause absolute chaos for football. If it was replayed, then every match in the future would also be subject to these calls for a replay any time a referee misses an incident." Chaos sounds important. Also from the previous source: "The French president speaks to me after the game and says it was a handball. He says to me 'it was handball, I'm sorry'". Therefore the French President himself has apologised. The leaders Cowen and Sarkozy are to discuss the matter. Sweden is blaming its own referee, according to the same source, so perhaps that is relevant. It is far too early to decide that something like this ought to be deleted in my opinion and it seems to have already gathered enough momentum to become important for some time. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jbmurphy (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It may well become a point that persuades FIFA to introduce video referees. Conning the referee in soccer will have to stop soon. At least see what happens in the coming days and weeks.
 * Comment Agree with the lads above. Long term notability has not yet been asserted but it may be gained in which case it should be given the chance to achieve that. On the other hand this may not happen and it may all blow over in which case an AfD could be run then  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The two comments here, like others above, are making an argument directly contrary to the principles of WP:Crystal. To say that "it may well" do something does not assert notability.  Articles are here on the basis of having established notability, not until that notability is deemed to have never occured.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair shout, all im advocating is that a stay of execution is granted and the trigger isn't pulled too soon G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. IMO this story goes beyond what is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS covers 'routine' news coverage; having politicians from two countries making comments certainly does not occur routinely. This is getting significant coverage in the US, where football (without a helmet and facemask) is never covered. J04n(talk page) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolute Keep Topic could not be more relevant Djln--90.208.89.159 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, with the disclaimer that I am a clueless American who knows nothing about socc... er, football. Sorry. At this point it's gone political, which as far as I can tell is rather unusual.  So it's no longer just a run-of-the-mill controversial scoring error. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep News coverage on this event has gone far beyond the typical coverage given to other World Cup qualifying matches. This match will be referenced in footballing history for a long time to come. YeOldeSacke (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break - Day 2

 * Keep, what started as a refereeing discrepancy has become an international debate on how games are adjudicated, involving many former players and now National governments. Fribbler (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep After reading through the arguments, it sounds rather noteworthy to me. Massive worldwide media coverage, and government officials getting involved in different nations.   D r e a m Focus  01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait? Seriously guys, there is no rush. There's no way to judge the significance of this match until all the events surrounding it play out over the next week or so. In the mean time, there's no harm in having the article as long as it's sourced. And then once things have cooled-off a bit we can have a real debate over notability. Trying to work out whether it's notable or not while the events are still going on is a pretty huge waste of time... Trebor (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, this is a common sense approach to this article. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The way this is going, it'll be an excellent test of whether the closing admin is a head-counter or capable of judging the conclusion by weight of argument. The qualifier is non-notable other than the conclusion. This isn't hand of God goal material at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I do hope he does give proper weight to simple just not notable arguments, made inspite of the evidence in the actual article otherwise. I find it odd that you personally think it isn't Hand of God material, yet give no reason at all why. I repeat something I said above, the original Hand of God goal didn't produce any rule changes, and the result wasn't over-turned, so, in your opinion, what makes a match Hand of God material, if it isn't universal controversy and comment all the way up to presidents and prime ministers, and multiple comparisons in external sources of it to the actual original Hand of God. MickMacNee (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Many controversial qualifying matches have turned on poor refereeing decisions - they don't deserve articles and neither does this despite all the huffing and puffing. Australian Matt (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you got any examples? Something we can actually compare to the reactions to this game? MickMacNee (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An example would be the Italy vs Australia WC 2006 match, a player dived, a penalty was given, a game was lost, and the country went bananas. But no wiki article because time heals the wound, and it will here. 58.175.243.203 (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This reminds me of the article about the New Mexico college soccer player that was deleted. Surely there is plenty of coverage of this incident in reliable sources, but isn't it too early to know that it will be notable beyond the current furor? I know this isn't a biography so WP:BLP1E shouldn't apply, but isn't it fairly similar due to the negative focus on Thierry Henry? Jogurney (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Anything with this much coverage (it is front page news here in Australia, and we don't even care about soccer) is notable. It has been commented on by the French President and the Irish PM - that is a big deal. 124.184.96.26 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Those who argue keep because it's in the news, where have you lived untill yesterday? Big sport events are regularly on the news. So yes, they are notable when they happen, that is why we have a policy against recentism. Being covered on the news quite simply isn't enough to ensure notability. This is the 39474th time that a medium-big game in European soccer ends in a controversy involving a disputed call by the referee. We've had plenty of previous cases in the Champions League and in the World Cup. For some reason, it only seems to be notable when teams from the British Isles are dissatisfied with the referee. In a week, nobody outside Ireland will even remember this.Jeppiz (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that no-one outside Ireland will remember it in a week. As this article, for one, shows, it has already had a huge impact on Henry's public image. This is no run-of the mill controversy, it's a diplomatic incident that has even been given its own name ("La Main de Dieu") in homage to the Maradona goal. The notability comes not from the handball itself but the extraordinary reaction to it. It's not British Isles centric, as the above user seems to be suggesting; the reaction has been big in France and elsewhere too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Mhm, and how is this different to the angry reactions to the referee in Chelsea-Barcelona in Champions League? Or to the referee in England-Portugal, the one who received death threats? Oh, and I've read the newspapers in four different languages today. All of them mention the incident, but it's not like it's big news, most papers doesn't even devote an article to the game, they mention it in a general article about the games or have a brief note about the incident. Jeppiz (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember world leaders being involved in the Chelsea aftermath. This is on a whole different level.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It is interesting to see how certain users with a very long history of blocks for disruptive behaviour use this page to argue for why we have to keep the article, why using the article page itself to put forward only their own WP:POV, removing anything they don't like, including tags. It is a prime example of how nationalists can enforce a POV on Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment all the keep votes here are trying to set a bad precedent... Every game in a big league or competition gains loads of media coverage, especially games where there are wrong decisions. For example recently, news of the beachball game (Sunderland - Liverpool) travelled far and wide, probably gaining just as much coverage. Keeping this article and every article about a controversial game will have this to point at... There really is no need for anything other than a note on the UEFA second round qualifying article that he Irish FA have appealed for a replay, and when (lets face it) FIFA deny that request, move on with it. It's not the first controversial incident on the pitch, and it wont be the last. And currently people have just pushed in every report they can find on the subject giving the article undue length  chandler 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Gordon Brown likes to take every opportunity to deliver a popular soundbite to the masses, but I simply have to ask, when the hell did he ever comment on the beachball incident? Did the Mayor of Liverpool get into a diplomatic row with the Mayor of Sunderland over it? Forgetting that, when did anybody take any official action over that incident? I don't recall anything of the sort even happening. The only thing you are right on possibly, is it got media attention. And even that was pretty much just the British papers. It might have been picked up as a funny news item on a few other wires, but I frankly don't recall seeing large comment and debate pieces in media around the world about that rather trivial incident by comparison. Seriously, if people are going to come out with these other crap doesn't exist arguments, then frankly, you need to pick examples that are even remotely comparable. Here's a handy link for confused readers who didn't hear about the world famous beach ball controversy that engulfed the world of football and sparked diplomatic rows and calls for the immediate adoption of goal-line anti-beachball laser technology. MickMacNee (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep I would normally advocate the deletion of this sort of article straight away, and I certainly don't want this to set a precident. But it is well sourced and makes a credible attempt to satisfy the GNG. How many non-notable decisions result in the Prime Minister of a country indicating that he is going to take this to diplomatic level with the president of a permanent member of the UN security council? The impact of this is also on a far greater scale than the Chelsea Barcelona game; that mistake did not add hundreds of millions of pounds to the Spanish economy. WFCforLife (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the incident is getting a lot of media coverage, and that's putting it mildly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait per Trebor, nudging towards keep. We have a precedent for controversial matches being given articles of their own, provided there is adequate coverage (e.g. Battle of Highbury, Battle of Berne) if FIFA do decide to replay this (IMO they should but they won't) then it is clearly notable as it sets a significant "legal" precedent within football. By then we should have a clearer idea of how significant this match is. If it isn't notable we can always Afd it later.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure whether a couple of government ministers commenting on the match counts as an international incident. If Ireland and France start recalling their ambassadors over this, like Egypt and Algeria are currently doing, or if these two countries take it a step further and go to war like Honduras and El Salvador did, then we can call this an international incident.  Bettia (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with all this irrational fear and scaremongering over what might happen if this is deemed notable? We do not have a paper shortage here. If there was a guideline that actualy specified what an 'international incident' was with regards to a football match, which there isn't, and if said guideline defined an international incident as similar to what has happened here, exactly how many extra match articles do you really think that would lead to? I'm guessing maybe one a year averaged out, at worst. The suggestion there needs to be a war before creating an article is totally over the top, it's like saying Michael Jackson is the minimum standard of notability for singers. The Algeria game was played at the same time as this one, so we can hardly start drawing comparisons there at all. In the absence of a notable match guideline, unless or until comparable articles are stable for a long time, or go through a proper peer review process, then simple comparisons between articles are pointless exercises in futlity, and citing examples of similar matches like Algeria, that have never had an article, let alone be successfully deleted, is equally pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What happened to all the snow?. That said, I think Bettia makes an extremely valid point. WFCforLife (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment FIFA have announced that there will be no replay chandler 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Story has been getting lots of media coverage, world leaders and politicians of various levels are getting involved. There has also been a request to FIFA/UEFA and the French FA to have the match re-played (while this request is not a precedent, i imagine that at this level - a world cup qualifying playoff match - it is certainly uncommon). Best, Darigan (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * as I said, that's already been rejected. chandler 11:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per reasons given above MickMacNee, GainLine, and others. This story has gone beyond sporting news and has sparked an international incident, albeit very minor. In the USA, I've seen this reported and discussed in newspapers and television more than any non-American soccer match I've ever seen. It's getting massive coverage. and the post-match events aren't quite done playing themselves out yet. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already said twice now that FIFA have rejected a replay, how have the post-match events not played themselves out?... And really, there's not international incident. chandler 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They haven't played themselves out because it is still all over the radio and there may be protests outside the French embassy. There's no source for that but the issue is still being discussed in the media. The player has also admitted to using his hand and says it should be replayed. The French government are contradicting each other. His former manager says the match should be replayed. Former Irish players are attacking their own team. I really don't understand how this is over. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What of FIFA has said it's over isn't over? There is not even a SLIM chance, "The referees decision is final" chandler 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. historic and notable confusion-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: From several days, I always hear at the TV, at the radio, on the Internet, EVERYWHERE!,...talking about this match. I think it's quite relevant!-- A ndrea 93  (msg) 14:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: A very notable event. All over the news. -- Footyfanatic3000 ( talk  ·  contribs )  15:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: It must be a very notorious event. It is not a club competition, but an international competition. A controversy in an international competition must lead some political disputes, which caused on this issue. I found nothing supporting that those disputes are parts of the match. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete typical example of WP:RECENTISM - it is too soon to say the fact will be "historic", or even that the subject might be notable. Right now it is no different than several other football games in the recent past (starting from Chelsea vs Barcelona). --Angelo (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it is the same as Chelsea v Barcelona, or give some examples of these other games so comparisons can be made. It's a waste of time just asserting that 'it is' the same, or 'they do exist', because the closing admin will likely just ignore it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's nothing more but wrong refereeing decisions. Similar games include: Argentina - Soviet (World Cup 1990), when Maradona saves the ball on the goal line with his hands. More recent, Sunderland - Liverpool (Premier League 2009-10), the beach ball. Watford - Reading (Championship 2009-10), "the goal that never was". There are multiple wrong decisions that lead to goals EVERY YEAR. chandler 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for an answer from a comment you made above where you similarly claimed the reaction to the beachball game was just the same as this one. I'm personaly fine with allowing a match article for any match which gets this level of reaction for a simple bad refereeing decision. Your argument here is like saying that the assassination of Kennedy was just a shooting, and plenty of other shootings don't have an article, so we shouldn't have John F. Kennedy assassination. It's a bogus argument, the issue is the level of interest and reaction, not what caused it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep - a story that is making headlines all over the world with heads of state getting involved? How could people even suggest this story isn't at all notable? Give me a break. -- T orsodo g Talk 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, I live in Canada and the replay between Algeria and Egypt made much bigger headlines in most papers I've seen, so it appears to be at least as notable or not notable.Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? That match also only just happened. If I go and create that article, what does that show in terms of whether this article should exist or not? Absolutely nothing. Other crap doesn't exist is not a valid argument. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely, "That match also only just happened" just as you say. So big games may make headlines the day(s) afterwards but that in itself is not new and not notable. There was nothing special with this game as opposed to many other qualification games that also featured some bad refereeing. Wasn't Ireland awarded a penalty against Georgia they shouldn't have had?Jeppiz (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And was the reaction the same as this? Characterising this as just a game which got headlines, which is the only reason it now has an article, is utterly wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the reactions were much stronger in case of Algeria-Egypt. Supporters attacking the players, angry statements by the governments of Algeria and Egypt, controversial goal, extensive press coverage for days, you name it. Makes this one seems like nothing. Then again, that's sports. All major games provoke emotions, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable in a longer perspective.Jeppiz (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go and create the article then, because as I've already said, you claiming an article on that match doesn't exist means absolutely nothing at all for this Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that these kind of events are so common that they are not notable. If you're not Irish, there was nothing noteworthy about this match as compared to any other game. Mistakes by the referees are far too common.Jeppiz (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the hundreds of replies that have already disputed this view time and again. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are few replies trying to dispute the point, none of them convincing. There's the claim that the game received much more media coverage than other games, which isn't correct. There's the claim that is sparked a diplomatic row, which is just as incorrect, there's the claim that it might influence future rules by FIFA, which is crystal balling.Jeppiz (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even here in America were association football is not very popular, a lot of people know about the "handball incident". Ummonk (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per candlewicke above. Liransh Talk 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, as it has got into a diplomatic row, and there is a high possibly of reforming by FIFA as a direct result of this match. We can revisit this in 3 months. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this "international incident" or "diplomatic row" everyone talks about? I've seen Irish elected officials call for a replay... But has anyone answered? Have French officials answered with "Fuck off"? Have Ireland kicked out French diplomats? I've only heard agreement from all over (including a French union of sport teachers), both Henry and R. Keane have said "replay", but FIFAs rules don't allow this, it's "the referee's decision is final". And what you say is "highly possible" I say is "highly unlikely" as long as Blatter and the current gang controls FIFA chandler 18:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no "diplomatic row". A journalist asked and of course the politicians answered, it's normal procedure. The Russian president also commented on the game between Slovenia-Russia.Jeppiz (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mick. Stu   ’Bout ye!  18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - 'recentism' based article. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to explain further? MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to stop biting everybody who disagrees, as you have done here, at that talk page, and at ITN?  Grsz 11  19:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A request to explain a rationale is biting? Rubbish. Do you think the closer will give any weight to someone who simply says 'recentism', when Recentism is an essay which actually states: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". ? MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grsz, MickMacNee is taking this whole incident far too personal and drags everybody who disagrees into arguments.Jeppiz (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the closing administrator chooses to 'ignore' my 'opinon'; so be it. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are better than that GoodDay. Contrary to popular opinion, and as I have explained throughout this Afd, I would be fine if this got deleted by weight of properly articulated arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If France ends up winning the 2010 FIFA World Cup? then I'll change my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's easy to promise, because we all know that they won't ;) (I hope I won't be eating these words on July 11...) 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my condition. France wins, then it's keep. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't think this match is notable yet despite the apparent satisfication of WP:GNG. The event is too recent and the arguments that it might lead to changes in refereeing systems or might lead to a signficant political incident violate WP:CRYSTAL. Jogurney (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that it DOES meet notability guidelines, but you don't support keeping it because it is "too recent"? What does that have to do with anything? -- T orsodo g Talk 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that not every topic that meets WP:GNG belongs in Wikipedia. This article has no claim of notability other than a slew of media coverage for a moment in time. It's fairly common to see controversial endings to football matches (I remember most clearly the US-Canada semi-final in the 2007 Gold Cup), but each one doesn't warrant an article. Are you arguing that every single topic that would pass WP:GNG warrants an article? Jogurney (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that an article about an event that seems to meet notability requirements should at least get more than 2 whole days before being completely deleted. Two days certainly isn't enough time to evaluate the lasting effects of this incident. -- T orsodo g Talk 20:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I believe AfD is a week-long process. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After reviewing additional comments below, I believe a merge into the main UEFA qualification article is more appropriate than outright deletion. Let's not give this WP:UNDUE weight in the qualification article, but it is notable enough to be mentioned there (as has been done with other matches with controversial endings). Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a certainly a notable event and therefore should be kept. Ummonk (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Noteworthy event which will be likely remembered for a long time. Just my two cents though, because obviously every above stated viewpoint and its opposite can be reasoned citing various WP::BULLSHIT guidelines Gruen (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is notable. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. A whole bunch of these keep and delete opinions are just going to get ignored without proper explanations. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It notable on the basis of such media coverage and on the basis that it has almost become an international incident with the government of both Ireland and France getting involved. The whole incident seems to have gone further than just sport and was even discussed at an official EU meeting between Irish and French delegates.  From my point of view, its far more notable than Germany 1–5 England (2001) for instance. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point, the secong half. As for the "international incident", I wonder if people are aware that a meeting of EU officials had been scheduled for a long time and it just so happened that this game was played just before it. It's not as if the Irish and French officials met to discuss this game. I'll agree with this game being more notable than the Germany-England game, I have no idea how that article came about. I would definitely be in favour of deleting that article, it's not notable in any way.Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I completely agree with you that the EU meeting had nothing to do with the match, I'm merely pointing out that both governments found it necessary to discuss the match from the night before and what stance each government should take. The Wall Street Journal for instance are calling it a "Diplomatic Incident"
 * Anybody reading the article will be under no illusion about the status of the meeting. It states: Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen...stated he would raise the issue with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the European Union summit taking place in Brussels on 19 November 2009. And Irish and French officials did meet, in the sense that they got together while both at the summit, to specifically discuss the incident, precisely because it was happenning the day after the game. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a source to verify that they met with that agenda in any formal manner, rather than simply chatting during a tea break? Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You do know how summits work don't you? 80% of the issues, including some pretty important stuff, is discussed through informal side chats. Besides, I am confident nobody but you even cares if there was no formal agenda, it won't sway their opinion of its significance either way. Put it to the test if you want, hold a straw poll. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then: verify that they got together, formally or informally, with the specific purpose of discussing this. You have published that as it if were an indisputable fact: justify it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? It is already referenced in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article only says that Cowen "stated he would raise the issue with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the European Union summit ..." and that Sarkozy "told Brian Cowen how sorry I was for them...". They got together and talked about it, but it doesn't say anywhere that they got together with the specific purpose of discussing this. Their chitchat is what probably took place in a lot of offices the day after the match, it doesn't make the match notable. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. The Hand of God is notable because it has become an expression, because it has stood the test of time, because it has received countless coverage throughout the decades. If this handball turns out to have the same impact, we can always write an article about it, but only then. Right now, it's just recentism. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a notability issue!  But I believe an entire article is WP:UNDUE weight to the incident.  With respect to long-term encyclopedic value, a paragraph in the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round article is appropriate, as is a paragraph in the Republic of Ireland national football team article as long as the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification section is present. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Will people stop voting DELETE just because it violates some stupid Wikipedia policy or guideline. Use YOUR brains and not policies when you consider AFDs.  Policies are created by administrators and excessively-active editors and not by normal Wikipedia users or editors and therefore they don't represent the majority of Wikipedia users.  They're also undemocratic and encourage less thinking and less discussion. Is the article about a notable or important topic?  Yes.  So keep it.  If it somehow becomes less important in the future then vote again. Are we running low on disk space or something?  (Someone's bound to respond quoting some gormless policy about arguing that diskspace issues, etc. are irrelevent.  When will someone return common sense and thinking to Wikipedia?--Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No offense intended, but is Xania's "vote" his genuine opinion or just trolling? It looks very much like the latter.Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like trolling at all, it looks like a failrly ordinary common sense argument and an invokation of WP:IAR and WP:NOTPAPER without specific links, perhaps without the knowlegde of the existence of these particular policies. It is tinged with a failry politicised sentiment against the way "the rules" have become set in stone through ad hoc processes, but your question still seems like a pretty unfair way of devaluing another editor's contribution to the debate. King of the  North   East  01:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(UTC) Comment Seeing as Mick seems to have taken it upon himself to harangue everyone who proposes deletion, maybe I could ask whether any of these !voters for "Keep for now/wait" like to defend that position? It is a reasonable request where the article is in need of improvement, but in no way is it in keeping with any principle of Wikipedia to preserve an article while acknowledging that it might, at a later date, be declared notable. Kevin McE (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very well sourced article of great interest to our readers. Topic is very likely to remain noteable in the context of international soccer history. If this doesnt turn out to be the case, no objection to the article being deleted sometime after 2010. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not make slurs please. It is not haranguing people by asking for clarifications of short non-votes, or to ask for examples when vague assertions are made. This is all information that is requred in deletion debates if people don't want their opinions ignored by the closer. I would not expect you to put up with someone just saying 'keep, its just like xyz event' or 'keep, its just notable', so please do not expect the same of me just because their opinions suit your view that the article shouldn't be here. You will note that I do not pick and choose who I ask to clarify their vote with a proper rationale. As it is, I happen to think the article satisfies general notabity right now in the absence of any of these supposed guidelines defining what is a diplomatic incident or not with regard to football, and it is never in a million years a violation of NOT#NEWS. But if you aren't aware that 'keep for now' often comes up at Afd, then you haven't spent much time at Afd. It is not policy, because notability is not temporary, but it is a simple fact that plenty of current events articles are kept initially, only to be deleted months later. It shouldn't happen, but it does. Even if this is kept, I have no doubt somebody will ignore the fact notability is not temporary, and come along and try and delete it in 6 months because 'nobody cares anymore' or some other non-policy reason. I personally cannot get my head around anyone who claims to know football who doesn't already see that this event is now cemented into the collective consciousness of football. I can forgive people with clear bias, but from anyone with a neutral viewpoint, I just don't get it. Henry's image will never be the same, this will always be mentioned in reffing debates, it will definitely become a point of comparison in any future bad decisions in games of comparable significance, and it is certainly something that will always now be part of the French team's history. MickMacNee (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So your defence on behalf of people who said this (I would have thought it appropriate to let them answer for themselves) is to say that they are trying to do something that shouldn't happen. Would you say that someone whose opinion is "Not a single person here is in any position to judge the historical notability of this game" is arguing for or against retention of the article? Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you already know what influence this will have, you should try a career as a fortune-teller. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a shame that prediction of the future is not actually part of my keep rationale isn't it? What you see above is a personal comment about my perception of other people's views, on the subject of Kevin's question to the people who he thinks are wrongly making predictions. I have already given my proper reasons for keeping it elsewhere, and not once have they violated WP:CRYSTAL. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Misrepresented again. I did not say that they are making predictions.  I am saying that they seem to be following a pattern of retain pending notability, rather than publish once notable. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep a cool head, please don't see an enemy lurking behind every tree. If this discussion gets your blood boiling, you should switch off your computer, do something else to relax, and return when you've calmed down. The last time I checked, "Henry's image will never be the same", "this will always be mentioned in reffing debates", "it will definitely become a point of comparison" and "it is certainly something that will always now be part of the French team's history" (italics added for emphasis) are predictions of the future, and predictions are by definition speculative. It's not just a keep rationale if you put keep in bold in front it. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "I can forgive people with clear bias, but from anyone with a neutral viewpoint, I just don't get it." Well, you yourself sit rather firmly in the category "people with a clear bias", don't you? And no matter how much trouble you have "getting your head around it", this is just one of hundreds of games that involved a controversial (or obviously wrong) call by the referee. They have all made headlines, especially in British tabloids, for a few days. Anyone who has been around football long enough has seen this over and over again, often more extreme than in this case, as when English lost against Portugal. In short, for all your fine rhetorics, you haven't been able to demonstrate how this game is different from all the hundreds of similar sports controversies.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am biased how exactly? I caution you to not to claim anything you can't support with direct evidence in the form of a diff. I have countered your claims that this was just another controversial match that gained headlines time and again, your intentional deafness is frankly not my problem. I will ask you again though, even though by now I already know it is going to be an utter waste of breath, how is this game the same as the Portugal game, let alone as you claim, how has it had less impact than the Portugal game? I wan't a proper breakdown of the points, not more simple 'it just is' assertions. I want to know when the UK Prime Minister complained to the Portuguese President because of that result. I want to know when the FA lobbied FIFA for a replay. Etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You clearly indicated your bias on the related discussion on ITN/C, where you criticised other Irish contributors for not promoting items to increase the country's profile. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was me complaining about the way ITN measures international importance. If you think I have a pro-Irish bias, then you are utterly misinformed, and you have obviously never contributed to any of the ongoing non-football Irish related discussions around the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Prominent in the news now, perhaps. But lasting encyclopedic notability, unlikely. The issue of WP:UNDUE is relevant as well. It's important to a lot of pissed off Irishmen right now, sure, but lasting notability of this event (in a qualification round, as opposed to say, a final) is not likely and Wikipedia won't be lacking without this page.  Grsz 11  22:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its important to the government of Ireland and the FAI too, or are they just part of your general 'pissed off Irishman' description? This one decision cost an estimated £26.7m to Irish football alone, never mind to the whole economy, and it's 'trivial'? We routinely have articles on a million and one things that have less lasting impact than this one decision. MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And games this week presumably had the same impact, proportionately at least, on the FAs and economies of Ukraine, Costa Rica and Egypt. Those games are not considered worthy of an article, so that last argument does not hold water.  Besides, if the goal had not been allowed, it would not have meant that Ireland would have qualified, it would have meant that the scores were equal with 17 minutes, and the possibility of penalties, remaining. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "are they just part of your general 'pissed off Irishman' description?" ... Pretty much. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; It happened a few days ago, are you saying that you know the lasting impact already? I thought above you claimed you weren't making a WP:CRYSTAL argument. Which is it?  Grsz 11  23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh pleasse, if you are just going to play games, I'm not interested. If you don't know by now what my keep rationale is based on, or my views on CRYSTAL or OSE, then you never will. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Grsz. Whether or not it's "important to the government of Ireland" or not is pure speculation. The Irish minister got a question about it, of course he said he was disappointed. The Russian president got the same question about his team's exist and was equally disappointed. And the argument about the economy is utterly irrelevant, by using that "logic" we should have articles about every game that meant that a team lost its chance to qualify. It is getting more and more obvious how hollow the arguments for a 'keep" are.Jeppiz (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just read the article, you are getting basic facts about it totally wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the article. Its lack of notability is why I voted "delete" here, and its low quality is why I placed the tags there.Jeppiz (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleary you haven't, because the Irish Prime Minister's role was not simply just answering a reporter's question. What else have you just assumed or otherwise got wrong about the content while you assessed it for notability? MickMacNee (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Surely this controvery can be placed in other articles, such as those of the teams or players concerned. If this were a World Cup championship came, then perhaps keep. But in the long run it's really trivial...Some day if books are written about this game, if it changes the course of world football, then we can reconsider. --Dpr 71.111.194.50 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Several users have said how it's "only" a qualification game and therefore not as important as the World Cup proper. But this match was the last chance for each team to make it to the most important football competition of them all and there were millions of euros riding on the outcome. I would argue that it's in fact more important than some of the first round group games at the tournament itself -at least then you have a chance to come back if you lose, but here it was winner takes all.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, but 172 countries tried to qualify but failed. Ireland was far from alone in seeing their chances go up in smoke due to a bad referee.Jeppiz (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break - Day 3

 * Comment. I would suggest a rename and expansion. The article is clearly not about the match, nor will it ever be about the match. Its about the reaction to an incident in the match. The match itself is non-notable, the subsequent controversy probably is (though that will only be correctly ascertained with historical perspective). My suggestion is a move to 2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off controversies and expand it to include the Algerian/Egyptian brouhaha too. Rockpock  e  t  00:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not a bad suggestion.Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. In fact, now I think about it, I seem to remember there was some fuss about the decision to seed the teams too. That could also be included. Rockpock  e  t  00:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Or we could rename it to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies and include the uproar over the presidents of Armenia and Turkey, who visited each other for their ties in UEFA Group 5. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST is not a valid reason for deletion. This match caused protests, a minor diplomatic affair, and it made international headlines so it's certainly notable enough to warrant an article on its own. --Tocino 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia by its nature unfortunately suffers from WP:RECENTISM which in the long-term places WP:UNDUE weight on specific events. Spellcast (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I like User:Rockpocket's idea of merging this into a new article about controversies for all of the playoffs, but I would go one step further. I would change it to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies to make it a more inclusive article. There were other controversies besides those in the playoffs, such as North Korea refusing to fly the flag of South Korea, Chad refusing to play in Sudan, and the stampede that killed 19 in Côte d'Ivoire for example. Thoughts? --Tocino 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, I think this is a better proposal. Rockpock  e  t  23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This will be remembered as an infamous game . As an article it is well sourced and some sections are comprehensive, but the match reports need to be improved. This is becoming the most comprehensive, well sourced and unbiased page on the whole internet about the subject, yet there is this clamour to delete it after only a few days. As other have already said Wikipedia is not made of paper, hosting an article of this standard should not be seen as a problem. I believe that the sheer amount of global coverage makes this game worthy of an article; I mean it's even got my wife talking about football! Perhaps a comparison with other matches in this category would be useful. There are much less significant matches (in my view) in this category of individual matches, and several of them are completely unsourced stubs. The category is heavily Anglo-centric and should be expanded with more well sourced and notable matches from around the globe and the existing contents should be referenced and improved, if some of this can be achieved because of this AfD it would have a positive outcome. King of the  North   East  01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cut the WP:RECENTISM. No one knows if this will really be remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
 * WP:CRYSTAL cut, although my football talking mates will certainly remember it for years to come. Other points stand. King of the  North   East  02:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete/Merge. Yet another WP:RECENTISM. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be trimmed to an appropriate length and merged into 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round. Reywas92 Talk  02:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are people chucking around this rather partisan essay as if it were a policy, and can be merely be cited as indisputable lore? To quote from the actual essay: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It does indeed say that, but it also provides a salutary warning that we do not magnify the importance of events unduly simply because they have a temporary high profile. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, based on other comments, what you are actually saying here is, it's ok to speak for other people in this debate, as long as you are doing it to support your view. That's good to know. MickMacNee (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Something about France, Ireland and their soccer teams? Who would have guessed that such a thing could ever be considered notable? I thought y'all played with crickets. Anyway, I don't see any need to rush for deletion on this kind of thing. Let's give it some time and let the dust settle. It's clearly not as notable as subjects dealing with the real kind of football, but we should try to be tolerant of even the fringier interests of our devoted readers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now; lots of content drawn from reliable sources and a coherent topic, which is likely to belong either in this form or merged into another page. Deletion would be killing the chicken before it lays the egg - good things are likely to come of this material. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Willing to compromise. I will happily change my keep if someone started 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies or some similarly named article. J04n(talk page) 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does that need an article, rather than a mention or section in the article on Qualification? Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the article as stands should be a keep, but am looking for a compromise. An aspect of WP:Consensus that is greatly overlooked on Wikipedia is Consensus-building which has the phrase "an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on".  What consensus has come to mean is that "party A" makes an argument and stands firm, "party B" makes an argument and stands firm and then "party C" looks at the two arguments and decides which is more valid (or worse counts the number of parties in each camp).  Wikipedia is a collaboration, give-and-take is necessary for this to work, and sometimes the solution is somewhere between the two arguments.  I'll get off my soapbox now. J04n(talk page) 12:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more strongly with J04n's suggestion, but s/he is right about the importance of considering compromise. The problem with AfD is that it's too black and white. Once an AfD is closed as a no consensus, it's very unlikely that a logical compromise will ever be found. All debates have a natural death; there should never be an upper time limit for seeking consensus. Discussions should only ever be closed as no consensus if it is clear that reasonable but opposed editors are never likely to agree on a solution. WFCforLife (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, per WP:RECENTISM Crafty (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, consider move. Current title breaks MoS anyway. --John (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have previously voted weak keep. In honesty I'm still unsure. The question is, does this deserve more weight than the other three games? How much more? Can this reasonably be achieved in a balanced article at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round? I don't think so. I like the idea of merging this into something more useful, but a more useful place doesn't exist. I'm strongly against a controversies article, as that would be full of Western European systemic bias. I'm not claiming that the article is currently neutral in any way, shape or form, but at least that is obvious. In 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies it wouldn't be obvious; the content would be neutral, but the weigting or criteria for including something as a "controversy" would not. WFCforLife (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

With no wish to disenfranchise others, I do think that it is notable that, of those contributors who I know to be regular/semi-regular posters at WP:FOOTY, there seem to be 9 in favour of deletion, one neutral, and 4 in favour of retention. Among the football community here (who might be expected to represent those most enthusiatic about the sport's appearance on Wikipedia, most aware of footballing importance, and most alert to football inclusion principles) it would seem that support for the article is very limited. Other contributors of course have the right to their say. How many have come in response to the appeal at WP:ARS (or how many retentionists saw that request, but did not want to defend the article) I cannot comment on. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a fair comment, but many of the WP:FOOTY contributors on both sides have put forward very brief arguments with at least one giving nothing but an inaccurate weather report. WFCforLife (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous comment tbh. The only thing you got right was the FOOTY peoople have no right to any extra weight of opinion, especially as they have written absolutely zero guidelines on the subject, and the only named Afd precedent is the totally incomparable Barcelona Chelsea game. And you seem to assume everybody on Wikipedia who knows about football is in the FOOTY project - utterly wrong. It is not inconceivable that, if they are concentrating too much on football articles, that these supposedly more knowledgable FOOTY people have simply lost sight of what constitutes general notability, which by your analysis more non-football editors here have determined it passes. I for one find it utterly bizarre that FOOTY can bestow automatic notability to the likes of the second tier third place play-off game, which is a total irrelevance of an event when compared to this game. MickMacNee (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel that FOOTY is trying to ignore wikipedia policy, you're perfectly welcome to raise that at an RfC or similar. Although I find it somewhat strange that you're picking out the "most valuable game in club football" as an example of non-notability, when there are far more logical targets. WFCforLife (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it exists, it's more like a sub-conscious wrong doing than a willfull wrong doing, so I thinkit would be wrong to suggest that they are actively trying to 'ingore' policy. MickMacNee (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "is the totally incomparable Barcelona Chelsea game.", do you even know about this game? It had the same amount of press after the controversial decisions. The ONLY claim to any special notability this game has is a goal that should've been disallowed. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. For example, do we have an article on Lionel Messi's "Hand of God" goal against Espanyol I think it was, that almost won them the league 3 (2?) years ago. Do we have an article for the Ireland - Georgia game when Ireland got a wrongful penalty (and might I add the FAI didn't call for a replay then)? Do we have articles for games with a offside goal? Wrongfully given penalty? Or wrongfully disallowed goal? NO. There is nothing indicating that this game will be remembered in the long run, just like every other game with a bad refereeing decision. chandler 12:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We are now deep into the realms of going over old ground here, but whatever. Yes I do know the Barcelona game, and I also know that the claim that this is all just about 'press coverage' has been rejected time and again. As has the claim that the only reason the article is notable is the causing incident, and not the reaction. I have repeatedly asked for evidence that the Barcelona game is in any way comparable, to no avail. You can see in various places above for all the very specific requests. I am utterly not interested in your pointles 'but it just is!' arguments, if you cannot be bothered with the seemingly trivial matter like actually providing some proof of equivalence using external sources rather than your own opinions. As for the other games, again, the invalidity of other crap doesn't exist arguments has also been raised time and again. However, for the purposes of debate, assuming any of those cited games were equivalent, then unless there was a discussion about their proposed creation, or better yet an Afd outcome of delete on one of those games, then what exactly is you point by mentioning them? Just because nobody thought to create an article, is absolute proof this one should not exsits? Total nonsense tbh, and not how Wikipedia works in the slightest. No guideline, no equivalent Afd outcomes, no prior discussion = no precedent. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't trying to say that just because it had a lot of hits that it was notable, all I was saying was there's a huge amount of interest in the article. Its also a bit unfair to say that it seems half of the hits on this article is vandalism from angry Ireland fans IMO this is a huge storm in a teacup but is still probably notable at least in the short term and if it survives may need to be revisited in the future when everything dies down. There are certain editors here who perhaps need to step back a little. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable event with major social and economic ramifications. Well balanced, sourced and referenced, certainly better than some of the more splenetic coverage over the past few days. This is the kind of article I love to read which wikipedia should be encouraging.yorkshiresky (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia should be more honest with itself, from what I have seen in the last year this is one of the things editors enjoy doing and the viewing figures are large for such articles, voting keep or delete in such situations is a waste of energy as there can be no consensus, there are a large group of editors that seem to think that we can and should write about anything we want to. The simple fact is some editors like to report and write news articles. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Similar errors by a referee are common and happen at all levels. It does not justify an article for a single match. All the relevant content should be moved to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round. The initial storm is quickly fading away, and eventually this game won't be considered much more than any other world cup qualification match. Julius Sahara (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability of this article doesn't stem from the simple action of a referee on its own, it is about the reactions, and suggestions that this same reaction happen every times a referee makes a mistake at this level, are simply innaccurate. And notability does not 'fade away', once established, it is permanent, see WP:NTEMP. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has huge coverage. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The page has had almost 6800 views in its first 2 days in existence G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you mean this deletion page we are on now? How do you get that information stats from? Bonesyardz (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And this AfD has been viewed almost a 1000 times. A big event of notability we can compare with perhaps is the Fort Hood shooting which had 180,000 views the two first days. chandler 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. They are like apples and oranges. Anyway where do you guys get these numbers from anyway? Bonesyardz (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://stats.grok.se/ The thing is, GainLine seems to say that the page is notable because many people have been to it. So I pointed towards a notable event to show the interest to it. chandler 17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't 'big' or 'small'. It either exists or it doesn't. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't think this match is notable enough for a separate article. I didn't say that because it was big it had anything to do with its notability, I just said it was a big event of notability. chandler 17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a big event of notability. There a big events, and there are notable events. It is pointless saying this event was not big, to attempt to support your view that it isn't notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my fucking... I have not "said this event is not big to support my view". I have not said something is notable because its big or small. I said the Fort Hood shooting WAS A BIG EVENT, that it WAS A NOTABLE EVENT. Therefore a big event of notability. And the difference in views are HUGE, especially when you take into account it seems half of the hits on this article is vandalism from angry Ireland fans. chandler 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete huge coverage over nothing. Merge back into the qualification round article. Big news articles (especially "controversies") are not always notable. Only history will show if it might become notable, but I seriously doubt this is the incident that will get us video refereeing. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What did the Maradonna goal change? Nothing. World Cup Quarter Final matches aren't automaticaly notable either, and looking at this Afd I am willing to bet had Wikipedia been around back then, I bet people would have said delete that page after two days also. Which begs the question, at what point did that game become historically notable? You could ask a hundred people and not get the same answer. Utter madness. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is seriously spiralling out of control right now. Every newspaper article, every person who says something about the subject, EVERYTHING is added. Surely WP:UNDUE must play a role here. It's currently even much longer than the Hand of God article and that article isn't even only about the hand of goal, but goal of the century and everything. If this article should be kept it has to be seriously trimmed down.  chandler 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure people can judge for themselves whether the latest additions are trivial, but they include such information as the ref's view, protests in Dublin, criticism of Heny's record of fair play, additional evidence of coverage outside the normal sources, the view of Henry's current manager, views of current and past French team players, and the view of the WC2010 organiser, and lastly, some more evidence that his got global coverage. If you hadn't started this shotgun Afd when the article was about two paragraphs long, then people would have had plenty of time to discuss what to specifically leave in and out of the article on the talk page as normal. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep; there is obviously enough third-party coverage to justify notability. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...like there is for every top flight football match in the entire world. We don't have articles for football matches just because they're reported on. chandler 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because "routine sports coverage" is specifically discounted in the GNG. Are you suggesting that the reaction to this match is "routine"? WFCforLife (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking for Chandler, but yes, this is pretty much routine. There have been several similar cases in the qualification to this World Cup, in the last World Cup, in the World Cup before that etc. If you think that there's something here that is unique, it would be interesting to know what that is.Jeppiz (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You think that this is routine coverage? Routine, in this context, is a match report on a weekly premier league game. Routine is daily updates on transfers. The coverage that has followed this match is far from routine. --Bill (talk 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There seriously haven't been any more coverage than there was after the Chelsea - Barcelona game. It kept up for a few days, but then there were league matches and the coverage slowed. Just like it's done now seeing as FIFA has said no, FAI have accepted the no... And the league matches will take up tonight headlines. chandler 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And you've been asked many times to prove it. People just need to search this Afd for the word 'Chelsea'. All you keep saying is 'it is!' 'it is!'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Prove it? You said yourself that you remember the game... Surely you remember the controversy and that the media was full of it days after. I won't take the time to search through tens of online newspapers to get all the articles out. Most people who aware of this controversy are also aware of the Chelsea-Barca controversy. chandler 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said I remembered it, and I said I remembered the reactions were nothing like this game. And I also said your 'can't be bothered' reply isn't going to convince anybody you are right in your assertion that 'they are just the same'. Either provide the proof asked for in detail above, not only showing global headlines, but all the other aspects of the reaction too, or stop repeating your baseless opinions. The article is right here, and contains all the information you need, if you actually want to prove similarity. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If my presumption is correct, you're Irish right? That might be why the reactions are nothing like this game. You're on the inside. Ofc the reactions in Ireland will be huge, but that does not reflect the whole world. Here (Sweden) there's been no more coverage than the Chelsea-Barca game. Probably even more coverage than some other countries because the ref is Swedish. chandler 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your presumptions have been constantly wrong. You are utterly missing the point on the issue of comparison, despite being told countless times. Coverage is not the issue. Just please answer the very specifc questions I asked you above about how the Chelsea game is the same as this. I most certainly did not ask you if the level of newspaper coverage is the same. MickMacNee (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha... presumptions like what? chandler 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My nationality, who I support, my motives for being here, pretty much everything. MickMacNee (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (In response to Jeppiz who responded to my comment) I disagreee, there has been much more coverage of this match over other matches, and it is still coming, including publications getting remarks from even more politians. That doesn't happen routinely. Former players don't routinely come out of the woodwork to put forward their opinions. Broadcasters and news producers don't routinely publish stories on how people are feeling about football in another country. This is happening in countries where football isn't the national sport, or even a hugely mainstream sport. If you (or anyone) disagrees with this, please explain why instead of saying "this is normal". --Bill (talk 23:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Incline towards delete on grounds of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. There is an issue of WP:Systemic bias. On the same days as the Franco-Irish matches were two other qualifiers involving Egypt and Algeria involving diplomatic incidents, attacks on a team coach, attacks on property belonging to nationals of the rival countries. I'm inclined to think that the circumstances surrounding both ties constitute Nine Days Wonders. But certainly I see no grounds to include one and exclude the other.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to create an article for that match just to illustrate how pointless it is to say 'x doesn't exist so Y shouldn't either'. There is no point comparing an existing an article to one that doesn't exist to support the idea it should be deleted, particularly when nobody has ever debated whether that one should exist or not. Systemic bias is an issue, but it does not justify going around deleting what we do consider notable, just because there are certain topics for whatever reason, people don't feel like writing an article on yet. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm tempted to create an article for that match just to illustrate how pointless it is to say 'x doesn't exist so Y shouldn't either'." Please don't. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. So now nobody is allowed to create an article on a notable match because of this Afd? Pull the other one. People in this debate have asserted it is even more notable than this match. It happened a coupled of days ago, it is fair game for creation. MickMacNee (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If your paranoid feelings lead to you throw civility and the assumption of good faith out of the window, if they lead you to chastise everyone who disagrees with you, if they lead you to consider disrupting Wikipedia to prove whatever point it is you're trying to make, then that still isn't allowed. Why are you throwing this little temper tantrum? Why would you get your knickers in a twist over this? If you lose all self control because of this, you should consider finding something else to do with your time. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That really isn't helping, please remove the comment as it has nothing to do with the discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, re. the Nine Days Wonder comment - "a sensational event that evokes widespread interest but is soon forgotten" - (Wikipedia), well, can you honestly say when you read the entire article, you come away with the impression that this will be an incident soon forgotten? It will come up again and again and again during debates on the rules of football and fair play, whenever Henry does anything in future, and definitely during the WC finals. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I can honestly say that. Looking at the news pages of today's issue of The Times, I see that the riots in Egypt against the Algerian victory get a corner on page 57 while the repercussions of the Henry business get no news coverage at all. By the end of this coming week, the Irish Justice Minister will have stopped mouthing off about how Fifa should, in his view, replay the game, Alaa Mubarak will stop claiming that the Egyptian team "faced terrorism before during and after the match" (see bottom left corner of Today's Times), the populace there won't riot again until there is another bread shortage, the Egyptian ambassador will return to Algeria and Irish nationalists will return to contemplating the Famine (not a nine days wonder)and its long term consequences; everything will be back to normal.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Its not what most external sources seem to be saying. Per WP:NTEMP, this doesn't have to be kept as front page news forever for the game to be remembered or notable. The original Hand of God game is no longer headlines, but it is remembered. Your comment about Irish nationalists is totally out of order and unneccessary by the way, and possibly reveals some POV here. If it was targetted at me, it is also pretty innaccurate. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Peter Cohen, the media interest in this little episode is already over. Perhaps the Irish media is still talking about it, but I haven't seen in for the last couple of days despite following the major papers in six countries on two continents. The Algeria-Egypt match played the same day is still the one getting more media coverage. Chelsea-Barcelona got much more widespread coverage, as did England-Portugal. And yes, Mick, it does matter. It shows that the reactions to this game were not particularly strong nor notable.Jeppiz (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting boring. It's up to you if you want to parrot everybody's delete opinion as if it makes you look like you know what you are on about, but it really doesn't. You have been given replies to what appear to be your only original thoughts on the matter time and again, all you say in response is you cannot be bothered to back up your opinions with some facts. You absolutely do not understand the difference between notability and media coverage, that's a fact I already know. You have ignored the replies so often pointing out the difference, I now think your deafness is indeed intentional. I really have got no more time for your unsupported personal opinions, and your obvious dislike of everything British Isles should now be obvious enough to anyone to be able to discredit your apparent wish to appear as a neutral observer. Infact, who knows, being from Sweden, maybe you are the refs brother. That is about as intelligent an approach to debating this article with you has become. MickMacNee (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mick, comment on content and not on other editors. Your rude behaviour and your personal vendettas against all those who dare to disagree with you is becoming a problem. You're not contributing in a constructive way.Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I get bored commenting on content in your case, because you are intentionally deaf, and I think you are now intentionally trying to provoke me into saying something rude, so that you don't have to answer any more awkward questions like 'where's the proof for that opinon?' MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly pointed out why I think the subject is not notable and I have provided reasons for that view. The fact that you continue to demand "proof" of everybody voting contrary to you is your issue. The fact that you don't accept (I'm refraining from saying "don't understand") my reasons or the reasons of everybody else not agreeing with you is not my problem either. You're not the judge of which arguments to accept or not any more than I am.Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Now you are parrotting my criticism of you back at me, word for word. You are on a wind up, pure and simple. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been more media coverage internationally about this particular game, than any other game in the current WC cycle. Living on another continent, I'm amazed at how much coverage I've seen on the front page of newspapers, and on major newscasts for a sport that is normally relegated to an inch buried in the sports section.  Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This could do with a tag. Looking, for example, at [] I notice that the Accra Mail has two articles related to the Egyptian-Algerian business rather than one to the Franco-Irish match. Looking at the current English front page at AL Jazeera  I see an analysis article linked about the Egypt-Algeria clash and no mention of Henry & co. The ENglish language press gives more coverage to a match involving an anglophone nation. Most of the big news agencies are anglophone or francophone and have more reporters in Paris than in Khartoum. WIkipedia doesn't have to be misled by artifices of this bias into thinking that the storm in a teacup over a routine piece of cheating such as happens in most matches is actually important.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment doesn't really make sense, or perhaps I'm missing the point of it. I'm not sure what the significance of what you're saying Peter. There has to be more coverage in a foreign language for it to be notable? Besides, the cheating was routine. It does happen very often, but that's not the reason that the event is notable. The fact that this match is notable is because of the non-routine significance, reaction and coverage. Can you or anyone say with a straight face that the coverage that this match in particular is routine for a World Cup qualifier? Our NOTNEWS policy is there to prevent articles on every professional sporting event which happens every week; routine coverage. In this instance, the coverage has gone beyond the football match itself, but on to the comments and actions of high-profile people who are not directly involved in the match. Surely, that is not routine coverage. --Bill (talk 01:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The Montreal screwjob in wrestling had alot less coverage than this,yet is allowed to be mentioned.It was the front page of Google news for 2 days.I agree it needs to be toned down because of the passion and anger coming from the person that wrote it,but not deleted.The World cup is the biggest tournament in football and shouldn't be compared to the Premiership.kevinharte (talk with me • my contributions) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it's widely accepted that certain games, even they aren't championships, can be notable if they get an exceptional level of coverage. See Snow Bowl (1985) and many other examples of US sports articles that get this treatment. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break - Day 4

 * Keep--sheer number of sources makes this obvious. There are tons of articles about individual sports games, and there should be, if merited by the sources. Hand of Frog should be redirected here. Savidan 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - At this point, stating any position would be quite futile for the purposes of this deletion discussion, since it is quite apparent this will end in a good old no consensus. With that being said, I would like to ask to those who voted to keep this article whether they believe this event will actually have any historical relevance years ahead from now. As of now, the article clearly suffers from recent-ism, as events like these have occurred plenty of times in the history of association football, yet we hardly have any articles on similar matches. Do we have anything on, for example, Australia-Italy from the 2006 World Cup, or Spain-South Korea and Italy-South Korea from 2002? Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 01:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. I doubt it'll be as significant once a few World Cups have passed. Fortunately we don't document based on perceived historical significance as we wouldn't have a vast number of articles. otherstuffdoesn'texist isn't really a good argument and each topic should be judged based on their own merits. IIRC, those other matches didn't have the same unique reaction that this one did. But I haven't looked into those so I can't comment on whether they deserve articles. --Bill (talk 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not making an otherstuffexists argument. All I was addressing was the lack of particularity of this event. By the way, historical significance definitely plays a key role in notability of articles on Wikipedia. If that wasn't the case, then we could make an article for almost any insignificant match played in the Eredivisie 1995–96 (with no offence to my Dutch friends!). Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 02:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your last comment is misrepresenting my position, you could only make articles on the games which have had media coverage which goes beyond the routine coverage of a football match. The only way we judge "historical significance" on Wikipedia is by third party coverage. Non-routine coverage of sporting events is an indication of notability. --Bill (talk 02:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot create articles on any old match, because as Bill has repeatedly said, this is considered routine coverage, and would never pass the bar of general notability. This match does, because it does have plenty of peculiarity as you call it. As for historic notability, what is historic notability for a football match anyway? Nobody has actually tried to define it here. As I said above, given some of the opinions here, even the original Hand of God match would not have got an article had Wikipedia existed at the time. And unless people tried to create articles on those other matches and they were deleted, and their significance and impact on football was the same as this game, then sorry, but you really are making an other stuff argument, because their absence doesn't show anything. As it is, we have no proof they were the same, and we have no evidence anyone has ever tried to create them. What we do have plenty of evidence of, is the creation of plenty of match articles simply on the basis of general notability. MickMacNee (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "those other matches didn't have the same unique reaction that this one did.", Like the South Korean who scored against Italy getting fired from his Italian club? There was outrage in Italy... And it still exists today. One Gazzetta dello Sport called Hansson "a new Moreno" for example, showing that that game still lives on in Italy. chandler 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, so what? Did anyone ever try and create that match article? Did anybody even discuss the creation of that article? No? Then it's absence from the pedia is irrelevent, per other crap doesn't exist. And as always, were the reactions the same? It certainly doesn't sound like a case of official appeals and questions about fair play and refereeing. It isn't even cheating. Quite how national associations and governments would get involved in this case on an official basis isn't clear to me at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge This seems like a minor incident, I don't think we need articles about individual games. Chillum  02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This game is a big story right now but I do not believe it will carry much, if any historical significance in the future. A refereeing error is not enough to give a game any inherent notability and as there are no similar articles (as far as I know) for the other World Cup qualifying play-off ties which have been recently played, I see no reason why this game should have an article either. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article claims no inherent notability from a referee error, nor does it claim it from simply being a qualifying match, it derives its notability from the unique reactions to it which went beyond all normal and usual reactions to similar incidents. I use the word unique there deliberately, because no other match that I can remember has ever had this particular set of reactions. We have obviously more notable matches and they all have articles, but this is definitely a notable match too, and it will be referred to in future. It is already a meme right now pretty much. MickMacNee (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the primary issue is WP:RECENTISM. Lots of minor events get plenty of attention for a short while, it does not automatically convey notability and to assume it does without waiting for proper perspective seems to be a case of crystal balling. Chillum  03:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is, characterising this as 'minor' is not a viewpoint supported by any of the sources. I have avoided crystal balling throughout, but simply looking at the content of the sources right now, it is clear that they certainly think this game will be remembered. You need to actually look at the sources (and, annoyingly because of this RECENTISM concern, a lot of the necessary detail is already being trimmed down to one or two bland snippets, such as 'ministers expressed sympathy', when in actual fact their views are much stronger), it is not accurate to just characterise it all as just 'attention', there is real in-depth concern about long term things here. You don't get that for flash in the pan incidents. MickMacNee (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- this is inherently a subjective call, but we do have an article about the match which featured Maradona's Hand of God. This is similar enough that I think it's worthy of inclusion. The flip side of RECENTISM is that if this turns out to be completely forgotten (although what would the metric for that be? Is the Hand of God forgotten?), we can always act on this in the future. I would also add that I don't see a point in deleting this article; if we want to purge this content from the encyclopaedia a redirect to the UEFA qualifier article would make as much sense. Johnleemk | Talk 03:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Similar to the Hand of God? Henry, didn't score a goal, it was not deliberate on the same level, he's not denied it was scored with his hand. A goal more like the Hand of God was Lionel Messi's goal against Espanyol a few years back and could've won Barcelona the title... No article. chandler 08:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And how is your personal opinion more relevant than the hundreds of reliable sources that have elevated it to the same level as Maradonna? MickMacNee (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comparing events, suggesting that one is reminiscent of another, does not amount to elevating it to the same level. Kevin McE (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If this is truly a notable event it'll be covered in a month. However, we're all aware it won't be covered in a month, so it's not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Define 'covered'. What actually has to happen on this month deadline? MickMacNee (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't beleive I missed it, but the day after the game, TIME magazine named Henry number 1 in their Top 10 List of Sporting Cheats. Now added to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A quote from that article: Not since Diego Maradona punched Argentina past England in a 1986 World Cup quarterfinal has a handball sparked such furor. Note that the Time website also published a report on the situation, something I'm quite sure it does not do for every soccer (football) controversy. Though I'm not familiar with the "comparable" (per some people above) Barcelona/Chelsea controversy, a search of time.com for Barcelona Chelsea does not appear to turn up anything relevant. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's ranked at all (because many other lists don't seem to go on any special ran) except some who add numbers (and then ofc go in reverse order because you want to read #10 first... so this might just mean Henry is #11)? Because no one believes that anyone would put Rivaldo's dive (or Henry's handball) ABOVE the Hand of God. chandler 08:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The list does appear to be ranked (as of now), with this incident labelled as "1. No Luck for the Irish". -M.Nelson (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Utter waste of time of all involved to even have to discuss this -- the extensive coverage makes this clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Given that there is unlikely to be consensus, would it not make sense to close this, and perhaps nominate it in six weeks or so, when the historic significance or otherwise should be clearer? All this AfD is likely to achieve now is to polarise people's opinions, making consensus less likely in future. WFCforLife (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds resonable to me. This is pretty much coming down to a series of "Mick vs anyone who proposes deletion" deathmatches with no signs of possible consensus at all. Gruen (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that in addition to Mick, there is a majority of users who have !voted "Keep". -M.Nelson (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 'historic significance' is measured in years, not weeks. I'm unclear what has to be happening in six weeks time to make this more notable. In March 2010 for example, IFAB meet to discuss additional referees. I am certain this will be mentioned in the media then. And it will definitely come up in the media and commentary every time France play a game in the finals. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This match may be the catalyst for the introduction of video evidence to major football games - which will make it very notable indeed. There has been extensive discussion of the implications of the event right across the European press, and beyond. I find this Afd somewhat bizarre when you consider that every episode of numerous American TV series have their own articles! Close and keep. Now please. Sarah777 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What this match may or may not be the catalyst for is the epitome of crystal balling. If this match turns out to have a major impact, the article can always be undeleted. We're not in a hurry. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol! Just as well you ain't in a hurry 'cos this article ain't going nowhere! Maybe if it turns out not to have been a catalyst you can try (and fail) again? Sarah777 (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this still open? After starting with a 10 - 0 deletionist advantage the score is now 29 - 47 and the "keep" vote is piling up. I'll wind it up myself under WP:SNOW if someone else doesn't. There is manifestly no consensus to delete. Period. Sarah777 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out The Corbomite Maneuver, a single episode of a single series of a US TV sci-fi programme. There are hundreds of other such series which get the same article-per-episode treatment. What is the basis for the notability of these thousands of articles; yet a key match in the most popular global sport ends up in an Afd? Sarah777 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Pokémon test. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! WP:SNOW also advises that when a cause hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of gaining consensus you should stop pushing it. Maybe you'd close this failed Afd?? Sarah777 (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable enough. Not the most notable, but not not notable. • Anakin (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep massive media coverage and sources, is clearly a notable article and game. Eldumpo (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This match is notable. it's a historical match. just like 1998 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC-OFC play-off) & Agony of Doha. There's enought sources too. Amirreza talk 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.This subject is certainly notable, topical and meets all criteria for a Wikipedia page. It is also symbolic of a defining moment in football history. I belong to the greatest footballing nation on earth, so I know what I am talking about.  Giano   18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And another notable match? France and Ireland won't go beyond some polite(ish) disputation but Egypt v Algeria seems to be brewing up a storm! Sarah777 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is well sourced and, given that notability criteria for football matches is actually quite low (see Category:Football (soccer) matches), it just seems that the main reason for voting for deletion is article's alleged recentism. However, being recent is not equal to being non-notable. Given the coverage, politicians response etc it's obvious that this game isn't an ordinary one. By the way, the same is true for Algeria vs Egypt games. Barocci    19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This game will be remembered across the globe for decades to come, and may even be more significant if it leads to introduction of counter-cheat measures such as video ref or punitive retrospective player bans. Even if nothing else happens it will be remembered as the time the seemingly perfect Henry showed that he is human after all.Chrismccarthy (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your whole comment is a prediction of the future chandler 22:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: nonsense. Wiki reports current events all the time without being accused of "recentism". Common sense is not against Wiki rules surely? And (Chris) I don't hold with the demonisation of Henry - several Irish players have said they'd have done the same thing. The issue is how the linesmen missed four  offences that led to the goal and why we don't use the dozens of cameras that cover these matches. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic comment: Mind you explain the four offenses? None of the players in offside were involved in the play... just saying... 198.53.106.84 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check the video evidence and get back to you - at the time I screamed "OFFSIDE" at the telly, but they didn't hear me :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break - Day 5

 * Keep as I am persuaded by the overwhelming interest in this discussion alone that the subject is notable enough for our standards. Upon examining the article itself, it is fairly apparent that it is suitably referenced for our purposes as well.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has undue weight with 90%+ on the handball, but the topic is notable enough. I don't have a problem with lots of detail from good sources like BBC  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 04:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Despite undue weight, the main incident will be remembered for a long time to come.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 05:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and the previous precedent. "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". If people are still referring back to this incident/match in a few years, like the hand of god game, then it can be recreated. At the moment it's not historically notable. --88.110.5.8 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. We have objective guidelines and policies for a reason so we don't have to use terms like "historically notable". The guidelines say that coverage is how we determine notability. The criteria for sporting events is coverage from the media which is more than you would typically get. This is an objective, fair and time tested inclusion method for Wikipedia. 81.2.117.126 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS, which is a policy and not a guideline, uses the term "historical notability". --88.110.5.8 (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... That was my point exactly considering you quoted NOTNEWS. We already have an objective definition for "historically notable". Your description of "people referring to this event in a few years" is not even close to what is described as "historically notable" in NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS only says that sporting events that receive routine coverage are probably not notable. This event has gone far beyond routine reporting has it not? You can't make up your own definition of "historically notable" like that. 81.2.117.126 (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see there is no specific defintion of what historically notable means. But based on WP:GNG (Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability) I interpret the phase to mean there needs to be coverage in the medium/long term. This match has received more than routine coverage but so did Chelsea-Barcelona. --88.110.5.8 (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Firstly, this article is well sourced. Secondly, the match's result has become an international controversial topic and, because of that, it will go down in the history of football as the most remarkable match of 2009.--AM (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. This far, this match has not been nearly as controversial and attracted as much coverage as the match between Algeria and Egypt played the same day. Unless something unforeseen happens, it is unlikely that it will be remembered as the most remarkable match even on that day. However, all such speculations are crystal-balling.Jeppiz (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No - in the case of Algeria v Egypt it was events surrounding the match that sparked the near crisis; in France v Ireland it was events in the match itself that sparked a controversy, albeit with no riots/violence. And certainly in Europe (perhaps unsurprisingly) the latter got, and continues to get, far more coverage. (I'm not disputing that the Egypt/Algeria was potentially much more serious outside  the footballing arena. But 'notability' is the issue; not 'seriousness'). Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not crystal-balling. A lot of new paper use the word of "remarkable", "biggest" or some word like that to write about this match. I'm sorry if my English was not clear enough for you to understand. Nevertheless, I would like to keep my point that this match is notable enough per WP:EVENT.--AM (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, match has drawn huge coverage from around the world, and I have every expectation that the match will be remembered in Irish sporting history even more than the 1-0 defeats of England (1988) and Italy (1994). Stifle (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:CRYSTAL. Speculations about how notable a match will become are just that, speculations.Jeppiz (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Neitherof these more notable matches have a wiki page.Cathar11 (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is OTT and as presently written breaches WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE> Instead of rationalising the article to give proportionality and balance editors are just piling in information.Cathar11 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really seem like an argument to delete the article entirely. These issues are fixable. -- T orsodo g Talk 15:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @Cathar11: Please refer to WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:RUBBISH.--AM (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @Torsedog, check the article history any time a user attempts to address the WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE issues their edits are reverted by MickMacNee, therefore these issues are not fixable and are relevant to this debate. --88.110.11.192 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Where have I done that exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your repeated reverting of Kevinharte's edits when he attempted to neutralise the article. This AFD has been running four days and the article remains in horrible shape therefore Torsedog's argument that NPOV/UNDUE issues are fixable and not relevant to the AFD doesn't wash with me. --88.110.11.192 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find no experienced editor will ever stand for summary deletion of entire referenced sections of an article when done by a single editor without consensus. This approach, when done repeatedly in the face of objections, is pretty much considered unnacceptable, and had he carried on doing it, he would have been blocked. He stopped, and as ever, I await anybody actually fleshing out these arguments that the article is not netural in the normal place, the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mick and I are not the best of friends (now there's an understatement) but in this case I must speak up for him. The sections Kevin removed may be unsuitable or they may not be, but that's a matter for discussion on the talk page. Removing long and sourced sections like that without a consensus is not how things are done, and Mick was quite right in restoring them.Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sections are sourced, but I don't understand the concept that sourced means undeletable. The reaction section is far too long, it contains soundbites from every Tom, Dick and Harry with most adding nothing new and some being completely irrelevant. To think that this article will be paraded on the front page within the next few days shows how sick this site has become. --88.110.59.80 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the most important matches in RoI's football history, a definining moment in the career of one of the most well known C21st footbalers, global news coverage and context by several debates on the nature of footballing officialdom and possible FIFA bias. Petepetepetepete (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The continuing international coverage of this goes well beyond anything that WP:NOT covers. This is not just a normal domestic match with a controversial decision. The article details how this match has had an effect in the nations involved, led to significant pressure for rule changes (extra ref, goal line technology) and is going to be discussed at an extraordinary general meeting of FIFA. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if it was discussed in Parliament. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment no problem with "keeping", but the article is on its way to becoming unduly long and politicised. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notably has been demonstrated by the wide coverage in secondary sources Spiderone  23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would mean we would have thousands of articles on different matches, at lot of games are covered in secondary sources every day.Jeppiz (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And your point is? We have thousands of articles on episodes of every TV series ever made. You are not addressing the notability issue. Wiki creates hundreds of articles every day from things that happen in the news. Do you have some number in mind as an upper limit? 100 new articles per day, perhaps? Sarah777 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick calculation; in the past 4 years Wiki has added (net) about 1,400 articles per day. Is that too many you think maybe Jepp? Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break - Day 6

 * Delete - This is not a particularly notable match in the grand scheme of things. If it wasn't for the Henry hand-ball, we wouldn't even be talking about it now. Yes, the Irish were cheated out of a place at the World Cup, but the match as a whole should not be considered notable simply because of one incident. – PeeJay 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, while the match may indeed not have been notable without the controversial call, there is more than sufficient sourcing available to indicate this is more than a flash-in-the-pan news event and has established notability beyond that. This event apparently has gone so far as to attract the attention of national governments, and is being used as a fulcrum to try to establish major changes in the way soccer is played. I'm all for WP:NOTNEWS, probably more than most even, but this goes beyond a simple news event. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename and keep, as the Thierry Henry handball controversy (or something of that ilk). That's the notable encyclopedic part. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep or Strong Merge The football world is still talking about this and FIFA dont even know how to handle the situation. I consider it a notable event. Portillo (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, if Maradona's Hand Of God merits an article then so does this. Bazj (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would normally err on the side of delete for recent articles, but really, for something that has attracted massive worldwide coverage, I cannot see a reason to delete. The principal reason to delete being given is WP:NOTNEWS, however the emphasis on that is routine media coverage, or coverage of individuals. The amount of coverage this has garnered simply shows that it is not a routine event. Neither is it a 'fluff' bit of news that goes around the world quickly, but equally dies down as quickly. This match has received more coverage, and is likely to have more longer lasting consequences than champions league finals (some of which are featured), which have articles. I know that is a bit of an 'other stuff exists' argument, but it is an indication that individual football matches can certainly be notable. I do not see that there are BLP issues to deal with, which is a common issue with recent news events. Quantpole (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Event has not only made an impact it has been well documented in seemingly every aspect of the events, aftermath and impact. What remains is clean-up, watching out for recentism and allowing the sources to lead. Those are not deletion issues. -- Banj e  b oi   13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. As mentioned before, the incident perfectly fits a new article 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies, as well as mentioning in Henry's article, the Irish team article, etc. The arguments from the keep-voters have made clear that the game deserves more coverage than other games, which can be done in those articles. The arguments from the delete-voters have made clear that the game itself is not notable enough for an article.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand why this article would be deleted? It delivers the facts of what is a controverial issue in an unbiased, neutral and factual manner.The fact that it is a controversial issue however shouldnt be a basis for deletion. These are the truthful, actual facts of the incident described in concise and well cited language. Just because the subject matter is slightly shameful incident to some is irreleveant, it is an important event in sporting history that should be reported, as long as it is done so in a truthfull, factual and non-sensational manner. This article is excellent at delivering the events in an independent manner without offending anyone. If Wikipedia deleted this aricle it would compromise the integrity of the website and delete a pivotal moment in sporting history.(Stephen L, Edinburgh)
 * Comment This is a long AfD debate, and I would hate for this to simply end as "no consensus" without any action. I see strong consensus for this information to be included in this encyclopedia (obviously, the event is notable, so there is no need to !vote on that point), but I do not see any consensus as to how it should be included.  It seems as though an article at Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) is not the best solution.  The most thoughtful comments above are suggestions for merging or renaming into a broader article about all controversies for the 2010 WC.  My suggestion for the closing admin (good luck!) is to try to distinguish between comments to keep/delete the content (should be an obvious keep) versus comments to keep/delete the article at that location (which requires more thought). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (applies to all merge arguments, but might as well be here in reply to Andrwsc) The only issue with that is, there is no content yet on the other controversies, so if a merge were done straight away, that would just create even more UNDUE issues. The article isn't about a match to my mind, and it seems to me these concerns that somehow it is and this it needs to be merged somewhere, could just as easily be addressed by simply renaming this article to Thierry Henry handball controversy or variants. Despite the existence of the expand tags, I personally don't think the article needs any more information about the actual match, and the summary of goal scorers etc is just that, summary info (and that too is just replication, understanding of the article wouldn't unduly suffer if it weren't there imo). MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject matter is clearly notable, and not having an article about it now would simply make Wikipedia less timely. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apart from controversy, it's a major football stage featuring important teams, we are not paper. Also such issues caused FIFA's extraordinary session. Brand[t] 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break - Day 7

 * Keep this is an important event that can and will change the face of the up coming world Cup. Until this World Cup is over then we must consider all parts that have lead up to its finale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.86.98 (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. Not of encyclopedic importance (a refereeing error does not automatically imply notability). Aditya Ex Machina  03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this a good article about a match which is already clearly having global repercussions and leading to debates about the responsibilities of international players to play fairly, and about the introduction of new technology and other measures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This game has already resulted in an extraordinary General Meeting from FIFA and there are now rumors that FIFA will add additional referees assistants behind goalmouths, video replays or fair play enforcement systems. Clearly, this game will result in some rule changes, making it even more historically significant than Maradona's Hand of God goal Laurencedunne (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: This really should have been deleted a long time ago. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is a ridiculous rant from start to finish and, while I aknowledge that the irish had the particularly bad luck of coming up against blatant cheating and a terrible error by the officials, it is unnessecarily drawn out and long. If people want to know about the incident they can search news results. It simply doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.78.95 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - While the handball and its consequences may be notable, the match doesn't require an entire (very long) article. The resulting fallout from the event should be mentioned on the page for Thierry Henry and that for the qualifying tournament. This will suffice. Vid (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: User's fifth edit

Section break - Day 8

 * Delete - it's interesting, but it doesn't really need a separate article. Most of this article seems like filler material, added to disguise the fact that this is essentially an article about a single controversial refereeing decision - a very widely reported and highly controversial one, yes, but not necessarily an event with long-term notability. Ultimately, while this is a borderline case, I think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

- 1) According to BBC Newsnight (25 November 2009), Wikipedia is currently suffering from a massive loss of digruntled amateur editors. It is quite obvious that this article has been produced through the research and efforts of many such dedicated editors. To delete all their work because of a few Wikicrats' autocratic and subjective interpretation of some rules will be, at least in my opinion, a dreadful example of what probably causes a lot of the above-mentioned disgruntlement. - 2) The article is clearly also of considerable interest to many readers. - 3) It has been said as grounds for deletion that the article is likely to be of little interest in the long run outside Ireland. That is probably true, but irrelevant - perhaps 99% of Wikipedia articles are mostly of interest only to some minority or other (such as devotees of Blues music, or fans of Paris Hilton, etc...), but that is not normally grounds for deleting them. So to delete the article simply because the interested minority is Irish would seem grossly discriminatory, and may well be a civil or criminal offence under various anti-discrimination laws. As with all the other minority-interest articles on Wikipedia, those who are not interested don't have to read it. Incidentally, the fact that the article is mainly of interest to Irish people is also a good reason for not merging it with the Thierry Henry article as some have suggested. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I will ignore the interminable, subjective, and insoluble quasi-theological 'angels dancing on a pin' arguments over whether this article does or does not conform to regulation x, y, or z. (Incidentally, Wikipedia says all these rules should be ignored where doing so improves Wikipedia - see WP:IAR and perhaps also parts of WP:NOTPAPER ). Instead, I would like to briefly make the following 3 points:
 * BBC newsnight, please try to understand, wikipedia is a competitor of the press in general, negative reposting from such sources is very opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC Newsnight program to which I referred had a lengthy discussion about this loss of editors. At no stage did the Wikipedia spokesman in the discussion dispute that such a loss had occurred, so there seems nothing particularly opinionated about the fact of such a loss. The causes of such a loss are necessarily a matter of opinion - and the opinions expressed by me as to some of the likely causes of the loss are mine, not the BBC's, and are based partly on my personal experiences as an amateur editor here, and partly on what seems to me to be plain common sense. You may say that's opinionated, but if so, so what? Almost everything here is necessarily somewhat opinionated (including your own comment), since the purpose of this discussion page is to allow us to express our opinions.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to WP:IAR, the article does not improve wikipedia so we can ignore your first suggestion. Furthermore, remember that WP:NOTPAPER states that the policy is not a free pass for inclusion and also notes that articles should be kept to a reasonable size. I am also sorry that those who contributed a lot of effort to the article should see it deleted but the fact of the matter is, this article should never have been allowed the time to grow in the first place. The coverage of the incident elsewhere in wikipedia (see my post above) is more than sufficient and we cant keep an article on the grounds that contributors to it would be disgruntled by its deletion. In my view, the lifetime of the article was prolonged by its creator tagging it for rescue which then gave it time to be fleshed out with large amounts of content and has wasted alot of peoples time. Thus, following rules such as WP:NOTNEWS prevents such a waste of time and upsetting contributors in the first place. Vid (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should anybody listen to an obvious sock-puppet? Log in with your real account, and maybe we can discuss it properly, safe in the knowedge you haven't voted twice in this Afd in order to advance your position. WP:SOCK is certainly one policy that isn't open to interpretation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I doubt the event will be historically significant. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2009 (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.