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 redirect to 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. I've redirected given that there's an obvious target and so that anyone can merge the content, if they so desire. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon vs England (1990)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We're now writing articles on individual World Cup matches? I see no notability here, no outside coverage, and a poor precedent being set, one where non-notable individual World Cup games can have their own articles. Seattle (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to set this game apart from many others. Non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing particularly notable about this match. Pretty run-of-the-mill as World Cup quarter-finals go. – Pee Jay 17:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This particular game is not notable on its own, and an article about every individual game is clearly not appropriate. Being "the only quarter-final to produce more than one goal" is not criteria for notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete only the grand final would get inherent notability. Unless the game had a lot of controversy, it does not merit an individual article. Next thing would be cricket world cup quarter finals. LibStar (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Cameroon vs England over redirect. The fact that this quarter-final was the only of Italy 1990 with more than one goal is not relevant. But there are some particular elements. This was the first quarter-final reached by an African team and the second time (and by now the only after 1966) that England reached semifinals. Anyway, the notabilty, or its lack of, could be the same of Cameroon vs Colombia (1990). --Dэя-Бøяg 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Cameroon vs England per above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability. Nothing sets it apart to justify a stand-alone article. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale - as no arguments have been presented against a merge, one would seem required by the above discussion in view of WP:ATD, that having been said, I don't see a clear consensus on what to merge it to, and it would be inappropriate for me to supervote that. So, focus please on why this shouldn't be merged if you believe it shouldn't, where it should be merged if you believe it should and why, and of course, if you think both options are wrong, we want to here that too.. and why. Thanks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to merge really. The only material not already covered within the 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage article is the Overview section, and it does not seem necessary to merge this info as it's unsourced and such game summaries do not appear in the other knockout stage articles anyway. Gongshow talk 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge: per Gongshow the material to be merged is unsourced and unnecessary play-by-play. The text is actually mostly duplicating the information shown in "The Match" section (which is already covered in 1990 FIFA World Cup knockout stage), leaving only a couple of trivial remarks. The match itself is not notable. BethNaught (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Gongshow. Non-notable match, nothing to merge as there is nothing sourced. Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect and please do the same thing with Cameroon v Colombia (1990 FIFA World Cup). Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This particular game is not notable on its own, and an article about every individual game is clearly not appropriate. Being "the only quarter-final to produce more than one goal" is not criteria for notability. There does not appear to be sufficient new sourced material to do a merge. So, Delete, not Merge. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly we need a major re-think on the notability guidelines around individual football matches, so that only truly seismic, epoch-defining events with lasting global coverage, such as 1993 Football League Third Division play-off Final, make the cut. 94.8.61.183 (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I remember the game, and it was a tremendously exciting match. However, I don't think it is notable enough in any way to justify an article on its own though. The important points are already covered in the main 1990 World Cup article - I'm inclined to agree with Deletion.ShugSty (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2014 (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.