Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final

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 speedy keep. Speedy closing... deletion is obviously not an issue here, it's either a keep or a merge with reorganizing the content. But this should be discuss at the talkpages. Tone 22:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final

No need for an article for a single game. It can easily be merged into 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage, even after it happens. That subarticle of 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup details the four final games of the tournament and does not be split into three and one. There is no worry about length because 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Group A and 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Group B each cover six games. People just want to have all the information in one place and not have to keep going to subarticles. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The final should have its own page, like many other finals have. However, I believe we should delete 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage. The tournament's knockout stage isn't as long as in other competitions (usually 7 or 15 games), and its article contains very little information. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 21:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have an article for the entire stage than a single game. How can the stage of four games be too short if a single final is long enough? I'd like it best to have all of those combined into the main article, but I don't see that happening. I disagree with having a separate article for the final for any tournament when it so often fits cleanly right into another page. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a final of a major FIFA tournament. Millions of people around of the world will watch this final. The U.S. team's route to this game is particularly noteworthy. --Tocino 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge Lets not continue this rather sheepish idea of making articles of things that aren't individually notable just because the wider event is notable. The winners of the cup each year will be worth recording but making a separate article for each final (and then semi final) is crazy. Unless something about the actual final itself is notable (and please argue what this is) this does not deserve an article. The article is about the actual 2009 cup final not the US result, or how they qualified for it, not the fact that millions of people regularly watch football/soccer finals on TV, this is average news that wouldn't even make the day's headlines. This should be on a list page or in a larger article unless the final becomes individually noteworthy. Polargeo (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the article's creator, I guess this is a bit of an obligatory keep, but I do believe that Confederations Cup finals (not just this one, but all eight of them - including King Fahd Cup finals) are worthy of their own articles. They all get plenty of press coverage, after all! – Pee Jay 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it may be notable enough for its own article doesn't mean it need its own article. There's nothing wrong with being merged with the knockout stage page. Maybe the World Cup, but there's not enough information to really need a separate page. The size is not long enough to be an issue. The information fits perfectly into the main articles; don't create a subarticle just for the sake of it. People care about the tournament itself and the winners, but the game is secondary. They don't want to have to go to a separate page. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per User:PeeJay2K3--James Bond (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with being in the main article 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage? It's in no way too long, and splitting the final off is just an inconvenience to readers. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary content forking - can't see why this can't be in the main article?—Chris! _ct 02:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This article has no any necessity in my opinion. However, according to WP:FOOTYN discussed before, Final match should be considered as notable match. As a balanced result has been given, I could not give any idea on the article. Raymond Giggs 03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this is a good example of "just because we can have an article doesn't mean we should have an article." Notability is not in dispute - the game is undeniably notable. But we create stronger articles when we consolidate these articles into respectable articles instead of having countless stubs. It's possible that the game will have some major impact, in which case we can revisit whether it warrants an independent article, but the game hasn't even occurred yet! Actually, we don't even know who will participate in it! It's notable enough for its own article, but such a move would not be beneficial to the encyclopedia. faithless (^speak) 06:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirct~~ to 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage. Does seem to be unnecessary content forking, when realistically the article isn't going to expand a lot. The final is already mentioned in 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage in quite a bit of detail. --Jimbo^[online] 08:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeep International competition final which has been covered globally. --Jimbo^[online] 12:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If we delete this article, we should delete also every single FIFA World Cup Final (ridiculous!)!--Andrea 93 (msg) 08:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who ever suggested that? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And the information will not be deleted; it will still exist in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
Merge to 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup. One reason why the FIFA World Cup Final Match has its own article is because the main article is so long and has so many parts going into it, that full coverage merits a separate section (just take a look at the family of articles at Template:2006 FIFA World Cup). However, the Confederations Cup is (1) a smaller tournament and (2) not as complex as other international football competitions. I also recommend that the Knockout Stages article be merged into the main Confederations Cup article -- it really is not necessary to have a separate article in the grand scheme of things. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the final of a top-level, international competition is definitely notable. GiantSnowman 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we've established that, but why does it have to be a separate article when it fits fine into the main article? Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree it is borderline notable, but I can make quite a good case for it not being notable, I've changed my vote above to merge. 1. I agree with the argument that in this context having a separate article for it is completely unnecessary and detracts from the coverage rather than enhancing it. Sometimes having stubs all over the place, just because we can, does not enhance Wikipedia. 2. Most soccer fans regard the FIFA Confederations Cup as a bit of a side show. The cups which the teams won to get into the confederations cup are more important than the confederations cup. It is not as notable who wins this cup (and the final is not as notable as for other cups) because it is a short competition with 8 teams and only 2 of these teams have actually had to win a top world class competition to get there (and those 2 (Spain and Italy) along with Brazil are certainly taking this competition much less seriously than their previous cups). Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Confed Cup is a big enough competition to have a own Final article. chandler 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might be confusing "notable" with "large." Everyone (I think) has agreed that this article is notable ("big" in the football world), but the Confederations Cup itself is not "large" (8 teams, 16 matches is not "big"). Since it isn't "large," it only hurts articles if too much of the content is spread too thinly across Wikipedia. See WP:SUMMARY for more details. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page as I think the finals of major FIFA tournaments are notable. However I would be inclined to merge the Knockout stages page back into the main article? Eldumpo (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- As per User:GiantSnowman... This is a major FIFA competition, with a large segment of the world's population watching the event, and of course the final. In addition, the winner will earn a major piece of silverware to their trophy case. If there is any section of this competition, or any for that matter, that deserves its own article is has got to be the final. Now, whether to merge the knock-out stage to the main article is a separate issue that should not be discussed here... take that issue elsewhere since it just muddles the principle issue at hand.

But then you have this scenario. As it stands, it is the US v. Brazil in the final. It is already important to the history of US soccer because the US is playing in their first FIFA final, regardless of competition. And, in the off chance the US should win, it is going to be even more notable and important to the history of US soccer. It would seem pointless to have this deleted, to have it finally come back as a new article.

Then you have to realistically think how big the main article will be if you merge everything to that. (That seems to be the idea some will eventually want others to push once we decide to merge the knockout round to the main article. But once that happens, they would want to merge the group articles to the main article. By the time everything is merged into the main article, its size will be in the neighborhood of 60,000 bytes... large enough to merit sections breaking off into different articles.) In any case, the first part of this tournament, besides the squads, that should be broken off into a separate article should be the Final because it is the most notable part of this tournament and the part will will most likely talk about in the future. Digirami (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one suggested merging every one of them together! Just because this one is combined doesn't mean the rest will be! Let's not close the AFD until after Sunday when it occurs, but unless there's a rediculous amount of information, there is still no need to have a separate article just for this. And whatever the outcome, the entire knockout stage is equally notable. And in the future, people aren't going to be talking about only the final, but the entire tournament. And YES, this final may be huge, but STILL, no one has told me what is wrong with having it combined with 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup knockout stage. People DON'T wan't to have to keep going to subarticles, they just dilute the quality. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final is the first thing that should have it's own article. No one summarizes a tournament by discussing what goes on in the group or knock out stage, people say "so-&-so won after beat yada-yada 1-0 IN THE FINAL". It is the most important part of the tournament, the culmination of everything that has happens, the part that actually awards a prize... And like I said, if there is any part of this event that should have a separate article from the main, it should be the final.

I know no one is suggesting merging all of them, but the possibility of having that happened is high once one portion is merged. I am merely stating some consequences of what could happened if any merging happens. Digirami (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry, but this is not just a "single game" it's the final of the best of the best of all the world's confederations. -AMAPO (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Confederations Cup 16,000 bytes
1997 FIFA Confederations Cup 12000 bytes (no separate article for final)
1999 FIFA Confederations Cup 13000 bytes (no separate article for final)
2001 FIFA Confederations Cup 15000 bytes (no separate article for final)
2003 FIFA Confederations Cup 16000 bytes (no separate article for final)
2005 FIFA Confederations Cup 17000 bytes (no separate article for final)
2007 Didn't even bother having the competition
2009 SIX separate articles created. Polargeo (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out how silly it is to have separate article for the individual matches. USA route to final is beaten by Italy, beaten by Brazil then beat Egypt (world ranking 40) and that gets them into the semi final. This doesn't need a separate article for the final because the rest of the competition needs the final in that article. Polargeo (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

give me proper sources / refs for those final matches and I'll write them ;) -AMAPO (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough the USA has gone crazy over soccer. Never thought I'd see the day. Polargeo (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, did you not consider that perhaps the reason why those other articles are so small is not because they're not deserving of more info but because no one has yet bothered to add it? I could easily create six articles on each one of those (it would take me some time, but I could do it). Anyway, the 2009 tournament is happening right now, so of course it will have more exposure. – Pee Jay 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. There is NO need to split out articles just for the sake of splitting out articles. That would be GREAT if you could add information to the main articles regarding the final, but I see none of them as being so big as to violate WP:SIZE, especially since most of it is lists and tables. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee you, after some football fans start working on those, it'll be big enough to need separate articles. Don't make a comment on something you obviously haven't seen before. Digirami (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo... I don't know if you have ever noticed, but the more recent the competition, the more likely it is to have more articles simply because the detail available to us is greater, and we can actually update it as the event progresses. (FYI, there was no 2007 event because the Confederations Cup will now only take place the year before the World Cup). And while we have new ideas for how handle current football articles with new precedents, users rarely go back to do the same for events in the past. Digirami (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For goodness sake this is the final game, of a major tournament it would be silly to delete it or even to merge it. Definitely meets WP:N requirement. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCRATCHES HEAD Before we discuss KEEPING, DELETING, or MERGING This Article, should we not let the game be played first? Look if the United States should win, then it would be worthy to keep this Article, as it would be the first ever FIFA Championship won by the United States. It would be comparable to the the 1980 Miracle on Ice. Should the United States lose however, it would be just another notch in Brazil's Soccer Belt, in which case nobody would care, if it were to be deleted or not. This is just my thought.--Subman758 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Response to talk message: The Super Bowl is more of an independent event, whereas this is the final of a tournament. Articles on Super Bowls are plenty long and there is no other article they could be merged into. This, however, fits perfectly into a main article and there is no need to dilute the quality of our information by spreading it onto another page. Reywas92^Talk 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why wouldn't the Super Bowl article be able to merge into the NFL play-off article? It's the same, except this is a international rather than domestic final. cha ndl er 12:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but just because the US don't care about football doesn't mean the rest of the world don't care... There's no criteria that makes it more notable because the US would win... {{worldwide}} anyone? This is a major final, no matter who plays in it or wins it. cha ndl er 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said the U.S. doesn't care about soccer? The win over Spain was pretty big news over here, even being reported ahead of traditional American sports on ESPN. And obviously it would be a bigger deal if the U.S. won their first ever major international cup than if Brazil won another. --Tocino 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is arguing that 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup is not notable. The reason for deletion is that this is unnecessary content fork which can easily fit into the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup main article.—Chris! _ct 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can make that same argument for any of the other articles, but finals for important international football/soccer tournaments have been deemed notable for its own article. If anything, it should have been the first article from this competition to become separate. Digirami (talk)

I still don't understand. Yes, the event is notable enough to stand on its own. But does that means it needs a separate article? I am afraid not. This is already covered adequately on 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup, so I really don't see why we need to cover essentially the same thing on another page.—Chris! _ct 06:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is all that should really matter. Plus, I can guarantee you that the final game will not be covered the same in the main article than it would/will in its own article. Also, because the final of any tournament garners the most attention, has the most information relating to it, has the most implications after the results, etc., finals NEED their own article. Besides, do you really think that the way it is now is how us football fans will leave it at? No. Digirami (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many championship games have their own pages. There is a precident for keeping, so I see no reason for this one.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The discussion is premature, and should wait until after the game, and/or when this particular match isn't so high profile. I think this discussion will (and would have) take a different turn once the focus is on new football matches. Right now this discussion will get enormous amounts of "Keep" votes because it is so high profile, but once it is just another article, I think a merge might be in order. (In other words, this discussion's decision should not be final.) Int21h (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable match, and certainly far more notable on a global scale than any Superbowl or World Series, all of which have their own articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Super Bowls and World Series are more independent events that have significant information on their own, whereas this is the final of a tournament that does not need to be WP:FORKed off. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Super Bowl is simply the final of the NFL play-offs, the only difference is that some marketing person decided to give it a hip name. If the USA and Brazil had qualified not for the "2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final" but for the "2009 World Football Ultramegabowl", would it still be considered a fork......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no need be look at a hypothetical situation. This is a fork. And actually, the Super Bowl is a fork of the playoffs, which is a fork of the season. The difference is that it has not been shown there's actually enough information to need a separate article, like the huge Super Bowl articles. Since the final is part of the knockout stage, there's no reason to split until the article size is unwieldy. Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well that is where you might to be mistaken. Articles are not made simply because there is enough information, but also whether it is significantly notable to merit it's own article. This match of this event clearly fits that, not because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (you misinterpreted ChrisTheDude's argument). Digirami (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is one of the worse and so far weakest excuse I have ever seen on deletion pages. The "Essay" is not policy and should stop being used as some sort of marketing tool for getting rid of something you don't like. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the worst essay on wikipedia and if we are ever going to get rid of an article, that would be the one I would choose. Of course we can create articles based on what exists already. It is called precident. If an article exists, then of course similar articles can be created. That is how we expand our little encyclopedia. We are here to inform, and if this can be accomplished with millions of articles, then I say we should go at it. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is only used as a last resort by editors who have run their own arguments into the ground and have nothing better to add or subtract.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the championship game of a MAJOR FIFA TOURNAMENT! Yes, it is only 8 teams in the tournament, but it is still a major FIFA-sponsored tournament between the champions of the international confederations. Whether the US wins or loses, this is still a major championship match on par with the UEFA Champions League Final, MLS Cup, European Championship, etc. John cena123 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major final. If this was most any other match, I would say Merge, but its a major final, so I say keep.Whammies Were Here 10:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - final of an important event. It's not like we are running out of space here on Wikipedia, right? -NYC2TLV (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a final, not a random match. And the event is a major FIFA tournament. It is ridiculous to see AfD for such an article. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 18:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Either Keep this or Merge all FIFA major tournament finals that are not uniquely notable. Although my knee-jerk reaction is to do the latter (although Wikipedia isn't "running out of room," most finals can be easily summarized within their tournament pages with proper citations to direct to a more elaborate telling) but I feel no strong pull either way. Given that the other final pages won't be Merged, Keep this one. HelpnWP (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.