Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final: As such, there is no need to have separate articles for every final, unless that much is extraordinary and therefore has exceptional, WP:SUSTAINED coverage.  The 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020 men's finals do not achieve sustained coverage, and therefore are just an unnecessary WP:CFORK from the main articles about football at these Olympics.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Olympics , Nigeria , Germany , Spain , Argentina , Brazil ,  and Mexico .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Maybe needed a separate AfD, however I would merge and redirect Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final , too Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics and follow suit with 2012, 2016 and 2020 articles.  Regards.  Govvy ( talk ) 13:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : What part of WP:CFORK policy indicates these articles are unnecessary?  Looking at WP:BADFORK , it seems like only two types of content forks ( "Pages of the same type on the same subject" and "Point of view (POV) forks" ) are considered unacceptable, and this article doesn't fit into either of those categories.  On the other hand, it does seem to fit into the WP:GOODFORK criteria of Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections , so that seems like it would be an argument for keeping the article.  -- Habst ( talk ) 13:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A page that covers the same subject as another page of the same type is often called a "redundant content fork".  The most common occurrence of redundant content forks results in 2 articles on the same thing; the extra one is a "redundant article fork".  A separate article on the finals is not needed, when it could be covered perfectly well in the main articles e.g. Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament , and a split is not required as the article is not too long.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Joseph2302 , thank you, I don't think that describes the current situation though.  There is no redundancy because all the information in Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final isn't covered in the parent Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament .  If it could be covered perfectly well, then I think that would need to be done first before a deletion decision is made.  In fact, the gold medal match is only given a small four-line table in the parent article with no match details at all, and despite that the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well.  -- Habst ( talk ) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A selective merge can be done if that's the consensus of this AFD.  But creating separate articles for the finals of an under-23s tournament where the main article has almost no text about its matches isn't the correct article setup.  the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well.  That article is long because it's filled with tables and WP:NOTSTATS violations, whereas prose is what that main article needs, as per MOS:PROSE .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Joseph2302 , WP:NOTSTATS says that the solution to too many stats is actually to split them out into a separate article, which I believe is contradictory to the premise of this AfD wanting to remove content forks: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article .  Prose can and should certainly be added, and there is definitely enough WP:GNG coverage to summarize, e.g. at [59] and [60] .  But adding prose would only make the article longer, which would further necessitate a content fork.  Thanks, -- Habst ( talk ) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The main article needs prose as per MOS:PROSE . Splitting the prose out into the final article instead of in the main article is not correct. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Joseph2302 , thanks, I do agree with that. Because the main article needs prose and is already quite long, that would necessitate splitting out some sections into content fork articles, so I'll !vote to Keep this article on that merit combined with the above WP:GNG sourcing. -- Habst ( talk ) 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep - inappropriate bundling, but in any event there appears to be coverage out there.  Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily meets the standards of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED .  The Olympics, and its football tournament, are also clearly notable events.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – It is exactly the finals from 2008 to now that have received enough attention from the media.  In the 70s/80s there is indeed a lack of coverage, but these last four finals have extensive sources in different languages ​​available online.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPINOFF .  I think the 2008 article needs further fleshing out, but otherwise I think the Olympic finals for the men probably stand on their own as valid spinoffs.  Jay eyem ( talk ) 19:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Firstly, it's not a strict U-23 tournament.  It does allow for some players of any age or salary to participate on each team.  Secondly, deletion was never an option here, as it would be a redirect - so it's a WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD failure.  And how does one think there wouldn't be significant coverage?  Nfitz ( talk ) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep