Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Germany v France (1982 FIFA World Cup)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

West Germany v France (1982 FIFA World Cup)

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

This article consists primarily of several paragraphs of badly cited game description. Even if the missing citations were added, there is nothing that couldn't be covered as a section in 1982 FIFA World Cup knockout stage (which is threadbare anyway). Compare similar sections which exist for eventful and controversial games such as South Korea vs Italy at the 2002 FIFA World Cup and Spain vs South Korea at the 2002 FIFA World Cup.

It may have contained the "most horrific challenge in World Cup history" (and it probably was, I am not disputing that) but that part can also be covered in (at most) a section of the tournament's knockout stage and in the respective player biographies. There is no need for a separate page for every game that includes a horrific challenge.

Platini's personal description of the game can likewise be covered adequately in his biography.

That it is "regarded as one of the best football matches of all time"? This may be so, but it is a very strong claim for only one citation.

There is no need to have separate pages unless the article is of the length and detail of, for example, Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) – which this most definitely is not. I would also suggest that, since there have now been three World Cups since this page was created, there appears to be little interest in improving it, even when the attention of the football world is on this tournament and its history.

Note too that one of the sources used for this game refers to the challenge on Battiston as a World Cup "stunning" moment. Yet there are many such moments. Down that page (on the left side) there is another "stunning" moment involving teeth, namely Luis Suárez eating a piece of Italian footballer. Wikipedia does not have a separate page for "Italy v Uruguay (2014 FIFA World Cup)" - it is covered adequately at 2014 FIFA World Cup Group D (munch of it focusing on what Suárez did with his teeth - which, it says, led to the longest ban in World Cup history.) The Middle E  &#128043; ( talk ) 21:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, France,  and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks as if the only policy/guideline deletion concerns raised in this nomination concern notability. It seems to me that the references already in the article are sufficient for GNG. Is that no longer relevant for football matches? Thincat (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nom points to three other matches in fairly recent World Cup competitions as reasons NOT to have this article, but WP:OSE cannot be a valid argument (something I myself was recently reminded of in a content dispute). The 2014 Italy–Uruguay match was significant only for the Suárez incident, and the 2002 matches had questionable officiating, for which I am shocked and/or appalled! Questionable officiating at the World Cup? Le gasp! This match as a whole is notable for having been the first World Cup match decided by penalty kicks as well as the flurry of goals in extra time. Could the article be improved? Absolutely, but the match clearly meets WP:GNG. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This game appears to have above ordinary coverage, especially over the other matches mentioned by the nominator. On top of the refs listed by Thincat, there are numerous sources that cover the match in depth, see, , ,  and that's before the Battiston incident only refs. I think WP:GNG is comfortably met here. Kosack (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources above clearly show notability. GiantSnowman 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Although, to me the article is a little bit underwhelming, it could be expanded easily. This game easily passes WP:NSPORTSEVENT in my opinion. This feels like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for some reason. Govvy (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination focuses on references (which they call "sources"), not on sources per WP:NEXIST. There are vast amounts of potential sources for this article. If nominator wants to improve the article, AfD is not the correct procedure per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. WP:N is no concern for this article. WP:SNOW does apply. gidonb (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2022 (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.