Deletion of Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)

Comment: Wikipedia by its nature unfortunately suffers from  which in the long-term places  weight on specific events
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: it's interesting, but it doesn't really need a separate article. Most of this article seems like filler material, added to disguise the fact that this is essentially an article about a single controversial refereeing decision - a very widely reported and highly controversial one, yes, but not necessarily an event with long-term notability. Ultimately, while this is a borderline case, I think it falls under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The continuing international coverage of this goes well beyond anything that #NEWS covers. This is not just a normal domestic match with a controversial decision. The article details how this match has had an effect in the nations involved, led to significant pressure for rule changes (extra ref, goal line technology) and is going to be discussed at an extraordinary general meeting of FIFA
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This is '''not''' a notability issue!  But I believe an entire article is  weight to the incident.  With respect to long-term encyclopedic value, a paragraph in the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round article is appropriate, as is a paragraph in the Republic of Ireland national football team article as long as the ''2010 FIFA World Cup qualification'' section is present
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: while the match may indeed not have been notable without the controversial call, there is more than sufficient sourcing available to indicate this is more than a flash-in-the-pan news event and has established notability beyond that. This event apparently has gone so far as to attract the attention of national governments, and is being used as a fulcrum to try to establish major changes in the way soccer is played. I'm all for , probably more than most even, but this goes beyond a simple news event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This will be remembered as an infamous game. As an article it is well sourced and some sections are comprehensive, but the match reports need to be improved. This is becoming the most comprehensive, well sourced and unbiased page on the whole internet about the subject, yet there is this clamour to delete it after only a few days. As other have already said |Wikipedia is not made of paper, hosting an article of this standard should not be seen as a problem. I believe that the sheer amount of global coverage makes this game worthy of an article; I mean it's even got my wife talking about football! Perhaps a comparison with other matches in :Category:Football (soccer) matches|this category would be useful. There are much less significant matches (in my view) in this category of individual matches, and several of them are completely unsourced stubs. The category is heavily Anglo-centric and should be expanded with more well sourced and notable matches from around the globe and the existing contents should be referenced and improved, if some of this can be achieved because of this AfD it would have a positive outcome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: Prominent in the news now, perhaps. But lasting ''encyclopedic'' notability, unlikely. The issue of  is relevant as well. It's important to a lot of pissed off Irishmen right now, sure, but lasting notability of this event (in a qualification round, as opposed to say, a final) is not likely and Wikipedia won't be lacking without this page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Yet another . There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be trimmed to an appropriate length and merged into 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Apart from controversy, it's a major football stage featuring important teams, |we are not paper. Also such issues caused FIFA's extraordinary session
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PAPER)

Comment: I will ignore the interminable, subjective, and insoluble quasi-theological 'angels dancing on a pin' arguments over whether this article does or does not conform to regulation x, y, or z. (Incidentally, Wikipedia says all these rules should be ignored where doing so improves Wikipedia - see  and perhaps also parts of  ). Instead, I would like to briefly make the following 3 points
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: Oh the weather outside is frightful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: the article is seriously spiralling out of control right now. Every newspaper article, every person who says something about the subject, EVERYTHING is added. Surely  must play a role here. It's currently even much longer than Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final)|the Hand of God article and that article isn't even only about the hand of goal, but goal of the century and everything.  If this article should be kept it has to be seriously trimmed down
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Another pointless shotgun Afd which shows that Wikipedia is utterly clueless when it comes to properly documenting significant current events, which almost alwasy get an Afd tag slapped on them within minutes. Not a single person here is in any position to judge the historical notability of this game. However, anybody who knows football knows that this was no run of the mill bad decision, or routine news. Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final is certainly no precedent for such a World Cup controversy. It is only the second day and this is already a http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/8368100.stm diplomatic incident between France and Ireland, so for people to suggest this is a SNOW delete is frankly astounding, and you have to wonder if anybody here really wants people to write articles at all. If this wrongly gets deleted with such innappropriate haste, please userfy it for me, I'll at least make sure that if it cannot be an article right now, and we have to wait while Wikipedia catches up with what is and isn't significant in the world of football, then at least the hard work of others is |not wasted and can be merged elsewhere
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: It is interesting to see how certain users with a very long history of blocks for disruptive behaviour use this page to argue for why we have to keep the article, why using the article page itself to put forward only their own , removing anything they don't like, including tags. It is a prime example of how nationalists can enforce a POV on Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: it as the match has transcended football onto the political stage. Not to mention the large amount of |coverage in |the media
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: IMO this story goes beyond what is covered by .  NOTNEWS covers 'routine' news coverage; having politicians from two countries making comments certainly does not occur routinely. This is getting significant coverage in the US, where football (without a helmet and facemask) is never covered
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per nomination, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)