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 keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Soccer drone spying scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Only short-term attention, no long-term impact. 日期20220626 (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Olympics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. There's been at least two waves of substantive coverage, the first throughout July-August when the scandal broke, and the second throughout November (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) as more information came out and the coach resigned. It even got some substantial academic analysis ([4]), and coverage in other months (October, September, September. This is pretty enduring coverage for a scandal, and it seems to have had major effects on the Canadian soccer program. At worst this would be a merge to the Canada Soccer article, but right now I think there's enough to justify a stand alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition to the points made by Eddie891, it is a significant example of ethical issues raised by drone technology in relation to sports, which will have ongoing importance. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It’s had such significant lasting impact as to an ongoing investigation, overhaul of the women’s team, and one of the longest-serving members of Canada Soccer staff quitting in disgrace. That we don’t constantly update articles during investigations, especially if there may be legal ramifications, is perfectly normal. That the incident drew in French police and affected other Olympics teams makes its impact and scope even greater. Kingsif (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – "Only short-term attention, no long-term impact" is not a reason for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. There are many other single-occurrence event articles. Regardless, I would also debate that there is no long-term impact. Kodak11111 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very well sourced article easily passes WP:GNG. Extensive coverage both geographically and over many months shows that this isn't routine news. pburka (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above which show notability. GiantSnowman 20:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Kingsif. – RossEvans19 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill news reporting without any secondary coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly a notable event, with lots of coverage over multiple periods of time. SportingFlyer T·C 04:54, 26 February 2025 (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.