Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster

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. One (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Original reasoning for PROD was "This article does not demonstrate the notability of this match. Any news stories about the game exist because it was played yesterday. The world record attendance is notable, but we do not need a full article about the match to tell us that the attendance was a world record." PROD was contested on the basis that "Actually there has been a big enough build-up to this beforehand... sources exist... 1st club match played there... 1st time for the winning team to progress... unusual for the sport... lots of press." Further deletion arguments include violation of WP:RECENT. – PeeJay 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not only was there a world record but there are other events surrounding it too. First of all, I've mentioned this elsewhere. The event did not take place in the United Kingdom, nor involved teams from there, yet is given widespread coverage by the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, etc. Both the newspapers went out of their way to describe the match in overly positive terms despite it having nothing to do with their country. One an accident perhaps? Two though? And why is it so spectacular? Because evidently nobody expected the winner to win. Sources are certainly not lacking. As soon as the match was confirmed tickets started to sell out. 80,000 is a large attendance for the sport concerned. As stated in the article, a previous attendance for a match was 12,000. This is a match which was anticipated for a long time as is evident from the period between tickets going on sale and the game being played. If this violates WP:RECENT then so too must every single individual rugby union or football match which has an article surely? --candle•wicke 19:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask our opinion on what the difference between this and Ricky Hatton vs. Manny Pacquiao is? Both have been in the news a lot. Both have lots of sources. Will that be treated any more historically? Just curious... --candle•wicke 19:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was given widespread coverage in the United Kingdom is because it was a match in a competition where clubs in the UK were playing. I suspect the semi-final between Cardiff and Leicester would have got a bit of coverage in Ireland. ExamRevision 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They still reserved special language for it. --candle•wicke 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France 24. Again mentioning the record attendance but this time from neither Ireland nor the UK --candle•wicke 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai promotion which considers Munster the favourites. --candle•wicke 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alistairjh is completely right. The UEFA Champions League quarter-final between Barcelona and Bayern Munich also received a fair amount of coverage in the UK, and Spain and Germany have even less ties to the UK than Ireland does. The Heineken Cup is the top club rugby tournament in Europe, so it's obviously going to get a lot of coverage in various sources. This is why we have specific notability criteria as well as the general ones; so that we don't end up with tons of unimportant articles just because someone wrote about them in the news. Apart from the record attendance, this match is NOT historically significant. – PeeJay 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not under the impression that rugby union had as much interest in countries like Spain and Germany as football. It may be the top rugby competition in Europe but it still has limited scope in comparison to the Champions League which it seems possible for almost any country to qualify for. Therefore the coverage of football will always be more than rugby union, it isn't an even enough argument as, if rugby union shattered its records of coverage, it probably wouldn't come close to that received by football on a regular basis. This is another attempt at WAX when the two sports really cannot be compared. --candle•wicke 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fairly obvious really - it meets all the criteria. Plenty of reliable references, and a clear claim of notability in the first sentence. SilkTork *^YES! 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. If kept, then it needs a better title. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, largely WP:NOT NEWS and WP:RECENT. The problem being it is very hard to verify if a match is significant until a fairly long time afterwards. A lot of matches in several sports are hailed as being significant, but that rapidly fades. The world record is notable, but the place for its inclusion are the articles on the two clubs, the stadium and the competition. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• But how then can we determine that this will be any less significant than Ricky Hatton vs. Manny Pacquiao, currently on ITN? As I said before this received significant coverage in the build-up to the match due to the two sides being closely linked and there being that possibility of the record. It could just as easily have been created before the match took place. It isn't really comparable to a sport like association football which regularly attracts huge attendances, huge money through television rights, sponsorship, etc and is played in practically every country in the world unlike rugby. When compared to other matches of similar standing this is significant, it is only when resorting to comparisons to a sport like football, which has so much more worldwide coverage, that it begins to appear insignificant. You refer to Barcelona and Bayern Munich? Well this would have been like Bayern Munich beating Barcelona except even more significant, maybe Bayern Munich going on and beating all the English sides as well and winning the trophy. If you read what is contained in the article, the winning players themselves expected everyone to treat them as underdogs, they were playing against the defending champions and arguably the strongest club rugby side in Europe. Then when they won all the foreign, i.e. non-Irish, newspapers went crazy. It wasn't just one overreacting. --candle•wicke 00:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I've left a source above for France but if that's still too close there is also one from Dubai... --candle•wicke 00:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where the coverage comes from is not relevant. Second, the Ricky Hatton vs. Manny Pacquiao fight is not relevant to this discussion per WP:WAX. If this match is still receiving news coverage in a month, six months, a year, then it may be considered notable, but not when it only happened on Saturday! – PeeJay 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be one opinion. I'm aware of WAX but you haven't responded to the fact that this is not a football match (which surely if anything is another violation of WAX?). This is not comparable to a game where the underdogs actually lost. Please see it as it is. I've compared it to another sport but so have you. How is this appropriate? --candle•wicke 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not comparing this game to the Barcelona v Bayern game in terms of notability or article-worthiness though; I'm comparing the two games in terms of the fact that they both involved two teams that are not from the UK, in response to your earlier comments. And to be honest, it's not like Munster were overwhelming favourites in the game; either team could have won. A real shock would have been Connacht beating Munster, Leinster, or any other team in the world. – PeeJay 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will have to sort out Connacht's article then. They're claiming they got to 9th in the Magners League in 2003-04 and that they reached the semi-final of the European Challenge Cup in consecutive years this decade. And I was under the impression they were improving... I'll have to revise my thoughts on that... --candle•wicke 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Merge to 2008–09 Heineken Cup.Neutral. A lot of the detail is fancruft, once that is gone there's not much left. Give it a section in the main page. Taking a look at Category:Rugby union matches, writing an article about a club level match is unprecedented. The only equivalent football match I could find was Bayern Munich v Norwich City, which was reported as a shocking result. Fences and windows (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... and this was not a shocking result? Precisely. Writing an article about a club level match is unusual but that's because this is a special case as demonstrated previously. --candle•wicke 03:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So an article about a club football team who produce a shock only defeat in a third round match is acceptable but an article about a rugby union team who produce a shock by beating the defending champions in a record attendance (and one usually not found at club level rugby union) in a (bigger) stadium which usually does not even host rugby union (it is owned by the Gaelic Athletic Association who don't allow "foreign sports" but have allowed the football and rugby teams in while Lansdowne Road is redeveloped, I'm sure there's loads of info on this around Wikipedia) and have all the press raving about the result turning European rugby upside-down is not? There is a section in the Croke Park article about the history of this and please see List of non-Gaelic games played in Croke Park which will confirm it as the one and only exclusive time the GAA have allowed club rugby darken their doors. Many of the others on the list, eg association football and international rugby, are recent additions due to Lansdowne Road being redeveloped – remove them and you have the occasional American football game, 1 boxing and 1 baseball. Please try to understand the history of the GAA and their opening of Croke Park and how significant this is. --candle•wicke 03:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2008–09 Heineken Cup. Looking at various articles for comparison say FA Cup 2008–09, it seem that we have one article for the final and another for the the rest of the competition, with a section for the semi-finals. I don't see a compelling reason why it needs to be different here. I don't think the normal notability matches should really apply for sports events otherwise we would end up with articles for nearly every match.--Salix (talk): 11:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge This match was certainly notable for reasons already mentioned. Record attendance, club match in Croke Park. Etc. (Irish Editors will appreciate how big a thing this is in particular). I see where candlewicke is going with this, this match possible may represent or be symbolic of a nexus point in irish rugby but only time will tell that. It possibly may be of note in the future. To compare it to football, its more Liverpool beating Man Utd in the semi of the champions league. This result in itself may be of historical note to both the provinces in question. Candlewicke seems to be a very solid editor here and deleting this would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would say keep to see if this turns to be proven to be of significance and failing that to merge it into other articles. GainLine ^♠_♥ 12:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have another accurate point there as well. This is nowhere near the level of the UEFA Cup. Unless I'm wrong the Champions League is the highest level in football. Yet this is the highest level in rugby union. The football match previously mentioned would be comparable to a different competition, presumably European Challenge Cup. I don't think you would see such a shock in front of a world record attendance in the semi-final of the Champions League every year with so many other added points of significance as mentioned above? --candle•wicke 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the Barcelona v Bayern game was in the Champions League. – PeeJay 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other game that was in the third round of an inferior competition? The above game was (I think?) a quarter final where the expected winners emerged and no records were broken and it wasn't the first game of its type played in that stadium (well evidently not, if Bayern Munich were playing Norwich City over fifteen years ago...), and various other unusual items which could be added together to determine some form of significance... --candle•wicke 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point the CW is putting forward here is that this match may be deemed to be culturally relevant rather than viewing it just as the outcome of the match, the same way as when Ireland beat England in the European Championships,only time will tell. This match has demonstrated that Ireland is still capable of great things at a time of low national mood, and as an irish person, we love the underdog story Also I think it is relevant to rugby as a sport in proving that as an occasion it is capable of matching those of other sports, with such a large attendance and a resulting derby game that was contested in a manner that showed almost everything positive in the game. I am a Leinster fan and attended the game so I might be biased!! GainLine ^♠_♥ 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how Leinster were viewed as the underdogs here. Aren't Leinster and Munster the two biggest teams in Ireland/the Magners League? – PeeJay 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its correct to say they probably are. However Munster are the defending champions in the ERC, They would probably be ranked as the number one club team in Europe presently. This season they have beaten Leinster quite comprehensivley twice in the Magners League and have had a solid run to the semi final. Bookies made Munster the favourites only giving Leinster a 5/2 chance of winning this match. In addition, all analysis in the lead up to this game clearly identified as Munster as the team that would progress. To use a soccer analogy, this match is like Liverpool beating Man Utd 3 - 0 in the semi finals of the champions league if it were held at twickenham and gave a record attendance for that sport. GainLine ^♠_♥ 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was under the impression that Munster were on a different level altogether. I thought many more members of the Ireland team came from Munster than Leinster or Ulster. We might have to contact the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph, etc. to tell them they're all wrong because they seem to believe this too. According to the sources, Leinster failed to progress against Munster on a number of previous occasions in this competition. In one sense I am a neutral observer when it comes to this subject. I was not at the game and don't really follow the progress of either team. However, I found it very hard to get away from it despite my best efforts, which extended even to avoiding spending time in the two provinces in question, so thought I'd investigate further. My findings led me to think this was a significant event, one that was worth an attempt at an article if not to see what kind of discussion might follow. --candle•wicke 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the point about the football analogy, would the semi-finals of the football not have four teams whose quality is slightly more equal than the rugby? Would the other two rugby teams be the equivalents of Barcelona or Chelsea? --candle•wicke 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're becoming awfully defensive about this. Anyway, if we had an article every time a team won "against the odds", we would have thousands of articles about individual matches, and that's just not right. This result is not a big deal. The attendance is, but the result is not. – PeeJay 16:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things I found in the article on Munster's stadium to indicate their superiority: "Munster also retained an intimidating 12 year unbeaten run at Thomond in the Heineken Cup - running from the competition's start in 1995 until 2007". "Munster celebrated their 12-0 victory over the All Blacks in 1978". You don't expect me to roll over and let it be deleted if there are worthwhile reasons for inclusion? :-O --candle•wicke 16:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am not soccer fan so cant answer that one but other 2 teams from yesterdays final are Leicester who won competition beofre and Cardiff, who won EDF Energy cup (kind of Anglos Welsh FA Cup). All of very high quality with significant number of players that are full internationals, Lions etc. GainLine ^♠_♥ 15:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you aren't a fan how can you compare it to Liverpool and Man United? I'm not fully certain myself but I would probably think it would be unwise to be making comparisons with football which has much more world-wide coverage and is played at higher levels in more countries than rugby. It could lead to misunderstandings as non-Europeans, for instance, might associate the two together and not see anything remotely significant in it. For instance, when one thinks that Munster, a highly ranked and very well supported team, can typically expect a maximum capacity crowd of about 25,000 at their new stadium (15,000 seated), this pales in comparison to Manchester United (76,212) or Barcelona (98,772), their footballing equivalents if you like. 80,000+ is an astonishing jump for club rugby union and something which no English or French side (with their large populations) seems to have been able to manage before now. --candle•wicke 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The only real comparison I can think of is this game (see the AFD); and that's like Connacht (or however you spell it) beating Munster in Munster's home ground (which brings me, who is the host, technically, for this match? Is it like the semifinals of the FA Cup where both games are held and neutral grounds, at both teams can purchase tickets equally?). Which brings me to my next question, was it really a major upset? Leinster also topped their group. And my last question would be, what country has the strongest following in rugby? Does Ireland winning the Six Nations has something to do with the popularity of rugby there? –Howard the Duck 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand (All Blacks) are apparently very good at rugby, having beaten every national side and everything else you see in their article. Munster once beat the entire New Zealand team 12-0 all their own. Apparently a defining point in the sport's history. So that might be like Manchester United beating Brazil by 3-0 perhaps? Naturally Ireland winning the Six Nations would have something to do with the popularity of rugby but so too would the popularity and strength of rugby (especially in Munster) have something to do with Ireland winning the Six Nations (you generally don't win things through lack of interest). Ireland has generally always been good at rugby union though and has won trophies before. South Africa beat England to win the last World Cup if that offers further perspective on who might be considered a good team. The match was a home tie for Munster I think. But the exceptional interest prompted the teams to seek permission from the GAA for use of Croke Park which proved a good idea since it filled an 80,000+ stadium to capacity. As previously discussed rugby union in Croke Park is a fairly big deal in itself. This went beyond the deal where internationals would only be played there. --candle•wicke 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt again – I've just noticed the average attendance at each match of the 2007 Rugby World Cup (international) is about half that of the attendance at this club game. I don't really know what that means or if it helps but I think it further underlines the massive attendance at and interest in this game. That tournament was held in France (the second largest country in Europe and with a population about twelve or thirteen times that of the entirety of Ireland if I'm doing the sums correctly), one of the more competitive of the Six Nations (22 Six Nations titles, 8 of them in Grand Slam fashion), so such a comparative lack of attendance seems unusual. --candle•wicke 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Croke Park is a huge stadium, so it's not surprising that a record club attendance was set on Saturday. Also, this was the semi-final of Europe's biggest club rugby competition, and it featured two rival teams from the same country. It would not have been hard for Munster and Leinster to bring massive followings to Dublin (especially Leinster), making the large attendance even less surprising. You should also note that the average capacity of the stadia used at the 2007 Rugby World Cup is 49,084, not much more than the average attendance for each game at the tournament (47,150), which, by the way, is not "about half" of the attendance for this semi-final.

Furthermore, although Munster were favourites, this not as surprising a result as the aforementioned Bayern Munich v Norwich City match (a match that featured one of the most successful teams in European football history and a team that had never played in Europe before – see if you can guess which is which…).

You are colouring statistics and facts a distinctly rosy colour to fit your own opinions, and I'm not having it. – PeeJay 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having it? This isn't some sort of autocratic military style elimination. Hmmm... --candle•wicke 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case for keeping is now being made on a comparison to the page about the football match I found, but this is flimsy - pointing out the almost unprecedented nature of this page isn't an excuse to start arguing that this match is more notable than the other one. Judge it on its own merits. I'd bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a news agency, so we need to take a step back and judge the notability in the long run, not just because it was a recent match. There is an essay on notability in sport - note that it is not a policy or guideline:Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_games. Original research and opinion about notability is irrelevant - the significance of the coverage is what counts. How many articles covered it, and was there any front page coverage? Here's the coverage I can find in reliable sources:[1][2](basically same article);[3];[4];[5];[6];[7];[8];[9];[10]. Now, bearing in mind the typical hyperbole of newspaper sports pages, was this an historic match? Honestly? Fences and windows (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably listed every Irish news source in fairness, whilst leaving out many of the ones from the UK and further afield? Add those and possibly others and we have lots of sources. --candle•wicke 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable enough for a full article, but a sentence or two in the Heineken Cup 2009 (or whatever) article about the attendance and such should be added (if it's not already there). Thanks! Fin©™ 21:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, lads im gonna change my vote to merge whatever notable info into other relevant articles. If the matches proves to be historically notable in the long run, then it can be re introduced GainLine ^♠_♥ 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No other match in the Heineken Cup has its own page, nor do individual matches in the Super 14, the nearest Southern Hemisphere equivalent. This game merits a footnote in the article on the 2008–09 Heineken Cup (as does the other semi-final, which is equally notable for the manner in which it was decided).

Of the reasons proposed for keeping the page:

attendance: the previous record attendance (81,000+ at Twickenham, as I recall -- something that CW fails to acknowledge) never had an article; why should this one?

the cultural significance: rugby has been played at Croke Park for two years now; not even the first match (a far more significant occasion) has its own page.

This is hardly a good rationale. I suspect someone might not have gotten round to creating it? Saying this match has its own article and this match doesn't isn't particularly helpful. I've never at any point denied they shouldn't have articles. This ought to be judged on its own merits. --candle•wicke 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On its own merits it was a great game of rugby but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The fact that other games do NOT have an article may be helpful (that's for others to decide) in so far as it demonstrates the lack of a precedent for an article for a game such as this one.- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster were "underdogs": this is irrelevant; if we were to use this a as a criterion for including articles, we'd be inundated with non-notable articles. For example, keeping it in a rugby context, in this year's S14, the Cheetahs (bottom of the table) and the Reds (second last) both beat the Sharks (who topped the table at the time). Neither game merits an article (nor should they, in my opinion).- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion. However, there is no table here. A table suggests it was just one match in a group or league? As such, that was a shock which occurred but may not have even affected the outcome of the favourites in their bid to progress? This particular article (keeping it within context) was not part of a group. The loser was very definitely eliminated. The focus was very much on this one match as opposed to an entire league. Tickets selling at such a rate and a world record being broken ought to clarify the anticipation. --candle•wicke 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's an opinion: so are all your points. That, in case you'd forgotten, is the purpose of this discussion, to elicit opinions, and that's also why I used the phrase "in my opinion"! But what on earth does the rate of ticket sales have to do with it? The issue is whether this rugby union match deserves an article, when numerous other, perhaps equally or more "significant", games (such as the 2007 RWC 1/4 final between favourites NZ and "outsiders" France, to cite but one example) do not have one. Your argument seems to rest on the size of the gate and the fact that it was an upset: the latter is POV, while the former is not -- again in my opinion -- sufficient to render it notable enough for an article.- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it was a notable upset, and we've got a number of other articles on similar matches. —Nightstallion 08:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the Heneken Cup, we haven't. This is the only Heineken Cup game to have its own article, and, upset or not, it just is not that "notable".- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is no reason for the Heineken Cup not to have matches... the UEFA Champions League does... so I imagine the equivalent in rugby union is possible. --candle•wicke 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg‎, then that article is up for deletion just like this one is, and therefore not admissible as an argument. – PeeJay 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that existed and (perhaps surprisingly) it doesn't appear all that notable to me. Oddly enough, someone told me this rugby match was referred to in analysis whether that it true. --candle•wicke 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've change my opinion above from merge to neutral. If it is kept, all the extraneous detail needs removing, and it needs to be written as an encyclopedic article, not as a sports news report. Fences and windows (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really in a good state because I didn't think there was much point adding to it when I thought it would definitely be deleted. --candle•wicke 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone over to that deletion discussion mentioned above and I'm left puzzled as to why the football match Battle of Bramall Lane is notable for being abandoned with record few players (that article is completely a match report – this one has at least a bit more on the build-up and could be added to!) yet I'm trying to add further notability to a rugby union match whose place in history and whose record-breaking status has already been proven on multiple occasions... I seem to be being informed that a record isn't good enough to prove notability and yet that's all I can see in BBL... this rugby union match is in better state than those two football matches put together... --candle•wicke 01:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, articles aren't kept or deleted based on how pretty they look or how comprehensive they are... – PeeJay 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as NOT NEWS with respect to there being a separate article, We need a policy on this. /Individual football, baseball, rugby etc games ought not be subjects for articles, ever. They should be covered in articles for the season, or team or series, or whichever is appropriate for the sport, in whatever detail necessary--I could even see a more detailed section than this. The reason for this is that probably every individual game at the professional level, and certainly every individual game at the championship level, will meet the GNG--there will always be a number of substantial articles in major reliable sources devoted specifically to it. The GNG is useless at both the high and low ends of press coverage. We could do it, we're not paper. But why should we? DGG (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it should be mentioned in its parent article, but not have it's own page. The very first Welsh international match is a far more notable and historic rugby event, but that sits happily in the 1880-81 Home Nations rugby union matches article. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete articles about single games should be kept only in very exceptional cases, such as finals for international top-level tournaments and other games that made history for some reasons, such as, for football, Italy 4–3 West Germany (1970) (best known as "Game of the Century") or Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final) (the "Hand of God" incident, immediately followed by Maradona's "Goal of the Century"). These are games that actually deserve coverage, as they made history of that particular game. This is simply not the case. --Angelo (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... it did make history? This is rugby union not football remember? I don't think this sport has a "Hand of God"? And you've given me yet another non-final (and another semi-final as well!) that has an article which adds further to the confusion... --candle•wicke 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a fact that surely this game won't enter into history of rugby union. I've made examples about football only because it's the game I know more about. The fact the game I mentioned are not finals actually strengthen my point, because they point out the fact a game must prove some sort of historical evidence of notability to last within years, and this is not the case. --Angelo (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The match took place only a week ago. It's far too early for asserting that it "made history"; so far, it's made news, not history. It was a shock upset, but that's not unique; it's not even unusual; it certainly isn't grounds for claiming notability only a week after the event.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid points. --candle•wicke 00:51, 10 May 2009 (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.