Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Saint-Germain F.C. 0–1 Olympique de Marseille (2020)

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 delete. majority consensus for Delete, some people indicating a redirect might be approparite, but given the nature of the title, I think this is an unlikely search term. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. 0–1 Olympique de Marseille (2020)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does this article meet WP:NOT? or was it just created due to the number of cards issued in the game?

If the latter is the reason, then I suppose matches with the highest number of cards in each top football league in the world should have a wiki page. Josedimaria237 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, WP:NOTNEWS. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the match may have attracted attention at the time, but I can't see anything to suggest the long term notability of the match that would meet WP:GNG. The article even states the score was unremarkable, so the article is based on some minor fisticuffs. Not enough for me. Kosack (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SIGCOV is clearly met here. This proposal seems to be an "OTHERSHITDOESNTEXIST" argument, and there's no evidence that the complainant has performed the due diligence of WP:BEFORE. Arguing that "the article is based on some minor fisticuffs" is an absolutely ridiculous deletion rationale. Who gives a flying fuck what it's based on? The game obviously received significant coverage in reliable sources. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my deletion rationale at all, so i'd suggest taking it down a notch. My deletion rationale was that there is nothing remarkable about the game that will warrant any significant coverage outside of basic reporting that any match with a potentially controversial flash point receives. More to the point, this article could be more than adequately covered in Le Classique. Kosack (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that wasn't your deletion rationale at all then it was rather foolish to make a statement indicating such. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I clearly indicated my deletion rationale in the first sentence. I then commented how unremarkable this match actually was. If you think that's notable for an article, then there's only one person looking "foolish" as you say. Kosack (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale clearly eluded to the fact that articles do not exist for similar matches with high numbers of cards issued. I don't "think" it's notable enough for an article, guidelines say that it is. You didn't strike out entirely though—you are indeed correct that only one of us looks foolish. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned anything to do with other articles existing or not, so I have no idea what you're talking about there? I never even mentioned cards either? The fact that this is heading for a clear delete/merge consensus doesn't bode well for your understanding of what is notable or not either. Swing and a miss I'm afraid, and it's getting rather tedious. Kosack (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kosack: I somehow managed to confuse you with another editor. I am most dreadfully embarrassed and I apologize unreservedly. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to Le Classique; not independently notable but worth mentioning there (and indeed already is). Giant Snowman 11:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a nice size paragraph at Le Classique about the events so I think a merge is unnecessary. I am not convinced the redirect title will be used by people searching for the (dubbed the "Battle of Paris"). There are surely more sensible redirect options. As this is covered by the Le Classique article I say straight up delete. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per comments, above. As a non-football fan, I'll try and view this in a neutral light. All I can see is that it was a brawl at the end of the match when most of the red cards were given out. If it was multiple cards through-out the match, at regular intervals in normal time, then I'd be more inclinded to keep, but even that would be a push. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The section at Le Classique is surely sufficient. As WP:N says "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article", otherwise we'd have an article on every single top-level football match. Nigej (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Le Classique#Cavani's free-kick, COVID-19 pandemic and "Battle of Paris", the match is already adequately covered there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched a video on YouTube of the sending offs, typed in battle of Paris into google and ended up on the wiki page with three links and one to this title, it’s a bit confusing why you use the title of the score line. Why do you need this article when there is enough on Le Classique page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:52:46AD:C5D0:9568:4231:3A60 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the purpose of a redirect as this isn't a title anyone is ever going to search for. It's not even the game with the most red/yellow cards – only the most in the last 20 years. Number 5 7 11:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A section about the match in the Le Classique article is more than enough.--Sakiv (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others have already stated, this is already covered adequately in Le Classique. This match lacks independent notability. Spiderone 10:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cover this in summary style in Le Classique and let that be it. – Pee Jay 00:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It can be added in Le Classique. I dont think a sepeate page is needed Indianfootball98 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2020 (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.