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[edit]

2009 FIFA Confederations Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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. Reywas92Talk 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. Reywas92Talk 21:44, 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. Reywas92Talk 01:15, 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. Reywas92Talk 01:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Reywas92Talk 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]
  1. FIFA Confederations Cup 16,000 bytes
  2. 1997 FIFA Confederations Cup 12000 bytes (no separate article for final)
  3. 1999 FIFA Confederations Cup 13000 bytes (no separate article for final)
  4. 2001 FIFA Confederations Cup 15000 bytes (no separate article for final)
  5. 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup 16000 bytes (no separate article for final)
  6. 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup 17000 bytes (no separate article for final)
  7. 2007 Didn't even bother having the competition
  8. 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. – PeeJay 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. Reywas92Talk 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]
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]
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]
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.
More