Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Nuremberg

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 21:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nuremberg

I am highly suspicious that this match deserves its own article since it is well covered in the group article already. Besides, even Zidane incident that happened in the final match of the tournament is included in the Zidane article. Tone 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is hardly a memorable match in the grand scheme of things. Sure, a few players got red cards, but when you look at it, it's not that big a deal. – Pee Jay 11:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it was the low point of a tournament which was marked by a lot of ill-discipline. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could be merged in valentin ivanovs page. The game itselve was not as noteworthy as the referee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.130.12 (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry? How is this notable? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not? --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where is the notability in it? This is a match like others, much less important than a lot of other events in the world cup, starting from Zidane's headbutt incident (which does not even have a own article, btw). --Angelo (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a match, not about a headbutt. If Zidane's headbutt is covered in the article about the World Cup final, why Figo's should not be covered in a similar way? This is not a valid notability criterion, really. The game produced a record for cards shown at any international tournament in football history, and that's it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No strong opinions as to when soccer games become notable due to unsportsmanlike conduct by the players. But if kept, this probably ought to be moved to a less misleading title, to make it obvious this is an article about a soccer game. Readers seeing "Battle of Nuremberg" are likely to imagine that the article is about a military engagement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you raise this issue with Battle of Berne, Battle of Bramall Lane, etc? --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should rename Roy Castle on the grounds that someone might think it's about a big stone building built in medieval times..... ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those articles probably ought to be renamed as well. I was wondering, though, if there was some sort of naming convention for soccer games. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm definitely going to have to disagree with you on the renaming of Roy Castle! I think that if names are used in publication describing a match, then it's acceptable to use them in the article title. If we are arbitrarily naming them, then it's easier to just use the club names. matt91486 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added a disambiguation statement to the title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this match set some all time records that makes it noteworthy enough. — 129.125.74.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Already adequately covered in 2006 FIFA World Cup. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the Battle of Santiago. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The match set a new record for cards shown at an international tournament, hence it is definitively as notable as any of the matches listed in Category:FIFA World Cup matches. For instance, Italy 4-3 West Germany (1970) is deemed notable because five goals were scored in extra-time, and Battle of Bramall Lane apparently derives its notability primarily from the fact that it was played in England. Systemic bias in English Wikipedia is such that most matches listed in Category:Football (soccer) matches involve an English-speaking country, as if its participation were the best way to gauge notability. The world does not revolve around London, really. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament finals are usually deemed notable. I don't really see this English-speaking bias, especially if you can see articles about the Battle of Santiago, Italy-Germany 4-3 and Poland v Hungary (1939). These articles, none of the being a football final, are notable because of their impact in footballing history. Is there some footballing history impact in this self-declared "battle of Nuremberg"? I don't think so. We deleted some time ago an article about a Premiership match which ended in a 7-4 result for a similar reason. A mention on 2006 FIFA World Cup is way enough. --Angelo (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a substantial "footballing history impact" in that the match holds a record of sorts, see above. And I certainly don't see the label "Battle of Nuremberg" as "self-declared". As with other such "battles" it was actually coined by journalists covering the event. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 7-4 Premiership match I mentioned above was a record itself, but it was deleted after discussion. Otherwise, we should make an article for every single match where a potential "record" was established, starting from Austria vs Poland in the Euro 2008 (match with the oldest scorer in competition's history). And, personally, I don't think it's a good idea. --Angelo (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being the oldest scorer does not make the match notable, but the person who scored. So there's really no comparison here. A national champtionship record and a sportwide record imply very different levels of notability. It's a pity (and a mark of systemic bias) that folks fail to see the difference. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show why this particular football match is of any particular significance in contrast to the thousands of others played each year. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually, it explicitly states why it's more notable than the thousands of others, for having the card record set at an international tournament. matt91486 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable match. The fact it has a vernacular name is significant too. And it will be able to be source appropriately. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the match appears to be notable per Ghirlandajo's reasonings. The info is referenced and usable. No particular harm in keeping the article (like BLP violations, etc.) Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep setting an all time record for the number of cards shown in an international tournament makes the match notable. E P 11:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody is disputing the fact that the match has certain notability. The question here is whether it is enough for a separate article or coverage in the cover article is enough. --Tone 11:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, it certainly needs to be renamed. Battle of Nuremberg suggests a "a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces" (from the Battle article) rather than a match between some hot-headed footballers. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article explains perfectly clearly why this particular match is notable, and there are plenty of sources to substantiate this. Lasting significance is shown by The Independent calling it "one of the most notorious of World Cup games" and "a terrible denouement" in separate articles two years after the event. Naming is a rather difficult issue. The sources seem to use this as the most common name for this match, but a quick scan of Google Books results indicates that there have been at least two military engagements and a poem with the same name. If any of these get articles then this one could be moved to Battle of Nuremberg (football match) and a disambiguation page created. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a historic match, quite notable even if it's for the wrong reasons. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 17:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable game and the article adequately covers it. If some disagree with the title, AfD is not a substitute to the move discussion. --Irpen 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The match was memorable and set many records, although in the negative fashion. The article isn't absolute garbage, so why delete it? Isn't the point of Wikipedia to provide information on as broad a spectrum of topics as possible? Leave the article. -- TheBigE1980 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2008 (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.