Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 April 29.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. This may be controversial, but the closing admin is meant to weigh up the strength of arguments on both sides. I am simply not seeing a convincing argument for GNG here. Granted there are some passing mentions of the match post the event, but I am simply not seeing sustained significant coverage to justify a standalone article. I don't doubt that the match had an impact on us soccer, but that doesn't mean an article is kept without having to show coverage in sources over an extended period of time. Fenix down (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that DRV overturned this close to no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification)[edit]

[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)

Was this game really notable? The result of it was that the US Men's national team failed to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, but not sure if it has lasting notability as a match in itself. Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article doesn't do a good job of examining the lasting impact of the event, which was the canary in the coal mine for U.S. Soccer. Within two years, the entire organization has changed (new managers, new executives, unseating the decade-long tenure of the USSF president) and the match is still used as a comparison, for example this article comparing it to another humiliating defeat last night. Sounder Bruce 23:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)≥[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most significant matches in the history of the US national team and had a major impact, both positive and negative, for years to come. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went through the references in the article, and there's no indication on why the match is notable. The references all seem routine - and most are dated BEFORE the match took place! Move the content (no redirect necessary) to 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fifth Round (where there's barely any reference to this match) and United States men's national soccer team (where there's only 2 sentences and 2 references from the day after the match). Looking at qualifying ... the USA failed to win a single away match, and lost twice at home. With only one more draw (point) separating them from the 3rd qualifying spot, it's not like this particular match was the issue, rather than the other 5 problematic matches. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would consider the match very notable considering its high press coverage outside the USA and how important it is to the History of the USMNT. I would also consider this match to be as notable as the "Shot heard round the world" match, both of which are "Start" class articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where User:KingSkyLord are the references that say this? They aren't in the article. They haven't been brought forward in this debate, and a Google search (not the easiest search term I'll admit) just yields match reports, and the occasional passing reference. Where's the in-depth coverage of it's significance - or heck, anything in-depth that wasn't filed within 24-48 hours of the match? Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see WP:SIGCOV, sources and content are not derived towards the match it's self, I see some notability in the match but there isn't enough for a stand alone article and we have been through this multiple times before. Single games must either be a final or have significant coverage for an article, with significant incident. I agree with Nfitz that some content can be moved too, 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fifth Round. Also, GiantSnowman with articles like this you really should give a few reasons instead of one generic no evidence of notability when clearly some notability does exist makes your delete rationale a rather floored argument that a lot of closers might just ignore your vote! Govvy (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it is, indeed, an important match, and I reckon passes WP:EVENTCRIT. The article doesn't do it justice as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are some references User:SportingFlyer that support that this match has any lasting significance? All we've got are match-day reports, and mostly reports from before the match. I'll happily change my vote, if I could see some references - but I haven't. I hardly think that everytime that a top-tier CONCACAF team barely loses to a second-tier squad, away, is significant ... every time it happens, there's calls for the coach to be replaced ... and we've seen that again this week. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a simple Google search and looked for articles written after October 11, 2017. See articles like [1] or [2], or even mentions in books like [3]. Some of that arguably isn't WP:SIGCOV, but again, I'm a weak keep, so I'm not really that arsed to track down better coverage, really just noting I'd be very surprised if it's not ultimately notable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider any of the sources mentioned here, User:SportingFlyer as SIGCOV? The MLS Article mentioned below is the only thing I've seen that doesn't seem to be at the time of the match, or briefly in passing. But is MLS a secondary source that is "Independent of the subject" - I'm not sure it is, given all the spam they keep emailing me promoting this team. Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The major American sports teams hire independent writers for their websites, IE the league doesn't directly control the content, I think MLS is the same way. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of coverage—from 2017 to now and in the media of various countries—describing reactions and consequences (failed qualification). I'd say it passes WP:GNG along this line (many October 2017 articles with details, and later articles with a clear reference to make comparisions), and WP:LASTING because it essentially brought about many changes for the USMNT [4] and was described as a wakeup call for U.S. Soccer. I also found interesting that this match is described as "rock bottom", "catastrophic," etc., even in sources published longer after the match, and is used to make negative comparisons (e.g. the recent 2-0 loss to Canada [5] [6]). This was a historic match for the USMNT; the article could be expanded with some of this information. ComplexRational (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah User:ComplexRational! That MLS Article is interesting - but as I ask above, is it a secondary source that's independent of the subject? The other two are brief mentions, when the USA lost another match this week to a CONCACAF team that it should have beaten - and quite frankly the first time I heard about this Trinidad match was listening to commentary during that match last week - but there were mentions of other matches too. Is every unexpected loss noteworthy? What about Honduras 8, Canada 1 (which I don't think is, despite seeing frequent references to it). Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of matches in qualifying stages tend to result in certain teams not qualifying. This isn't special. Number 5 7 11:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. This game is still being referenced in coverage which shows sustaining notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What reference do you, User:4meter4 consider as GNG and SIGCOV? The MLS Article mentioned above is the only one that seems close. But is MLS a secondary source that is "Independent of the subject"? Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with the 7-day deadline on this approaching, I suggest relisting this, while we discuss the recently found sources further. Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (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.