Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 14 April 2011

2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season/FA Cup Fourth round replay

2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season/FA Cup Fourth round replay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable. Previously deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur v Manchester City (FA Cup 2003-04). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable match, as two previous AfDs show. GiantSnowman 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - quite clearly meets WP:GNG. This match has plenty of reliable sources that address the subject "directly and in detail". In addition, as I said in the first AfD "I quote from the Guardian "This may well be as great a comeback as English football has ever known" and Kevin Keegan "They'll talk about this game long after we're dead and gone"". The first AfD closed as merge not delete. However, the merged material is not there now so a standalone article now seems the best way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - You could say that about a lot of games. Alex Ferguson described United's 4-3 win over City last season as the greatest derby win ever, but we don't have an article about that game even though there are masses of web sources about it. If we had an article for every game with decent coverage, we'd have hundreds! Anyway, we already had an AfD for an article about this very game, and the consensus was to delete. Why on earth does User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry seem to believe he is completely above the rest of the community? – PeeJay 22:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Response1 - Perhaps you should have read this, WP:AFDEQ and WP:NPA before you made your comment? You also clearly seriously misunderstand the AfD process. Each review discussion is a separate process because the previous AfDs were for different articles. If deleting an article simply because "another article on this topic was also previously deleted" was a valid reason for voting that way on the current one, then it would be impossible to ever improve an article. Prior deletion of poor articles has nothing whatsoever to do with any article currently being reviewed for AfD. This process is also intended to prevent people with personal agendas banding together to repeatedly suppress article material that they don't personally like simply on the basis that they had previously managed to successfully "play the system" in order to reject it. Thus an argument that an article on the same topic was previously AfD-ed is quite irrelevant. It may also be indicative of an agenda. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 01:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Response - "If we keep this then we will have ooo's of others" is never a good argument. Firstly we never do because we don't have the editors prepared or interested to write many such articles. Secondly, even if many other articles on other notable or unusual matches as well written and sourced as this one are produced so what? We are not paper and can accommodate as many such articles that people are prepared to write. I have yet to see a policy-based deletion argument here - what we have are "I don't like it". TerriersFan (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Response2 - WRT your comments about the 4-3 derby game, it may well be one if the best derby games ever between the two clubs. We don't know that though. Because pundits, journalists and bloggers don't keep publishing "best of" lists of Manchester derby games every few months with that one featured on it. It is not the Kevin Keegan quote that matters (by itself) it is the fact that whenever comeback games are now mentioned, the Spurs-City game is always one of the first ones mentioned. For instance, it was mentioned in a comparative fashion when Newcastle drew with Arsenal 4-4. There is no rational explaining of zeitgeist. That's the difference between those two 4-3 games. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 02:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per previous AfD. Btw, if this article is kept, it will need to be moved, as we do not allow subpages in the mainspace on the English Misplaced Pages. – PeeJay 22:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - agreed about the page move but that can be accomplished quite simply. TerriersFan (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I also agree. The background to why and how the article was created has already been explained. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator and per WP:NOTNEWS. None of the lengthy comments above address that fundamental point. Nothing has substantially changed to make this game more or less notable since the previous discussions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment and delete Since I never saw the original versions, I'd be hard pressed to know what significant additions were made to the article to make it "more notable". But from what I see so far, I'd have to go with the fact that this is WP:NOTNEWS. And to MLitH, it would do you good to simplify your arguments. No one wants to read massive essays on why you think this is notable, or for any counter-arguments here or elsewhere. Digirami (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For reference, a copy of the version deleted at the last AfD is in User:Falastur2's userspace. This revision is how the article looked at the close of the AfD. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to 2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season. Matches like this one elicit a wide range of opinions from the community. There is near-unanimous agreement that things like national cup finals merit articles, but that routine fixtures do not. This match was not a final, but nor was it routine, and so falls into the area in the middle, where advocates of all positions could probably find an AfD precedent somewhere in this list. I was one of those calling for a merge to 2003–04 FA Cup in the first AfD. 2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season did not exist then, and I now consider that to be a more appropriate merge target. When the match is more notable in the history of one team than the other, I think a merge to that team's season article can work well. This was the outcome for Stevenage F.C. 3–1 Newcastle United F.C., which was merged to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season, where I think it is a good fit. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Per previous AfDs. It was not a cup final and no records were broken. It was just another good comeback, much like this one. Argyle 4 Life 18:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. There appears to have been an attempt to post this article in the main space, while deliberately not adding categories to the article to avoid it appearing in other places. I only came across the article because I was providing assessments to unassessed football articles, and another user had added the WP:FOOTY tag to the article talk page. I don't think this is particularly good behaviour. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Response - Read Background. There appears no such thing. I am the person that actually categorized this article because bots kept flagging it as needing categorization, so I hardly think there was a "deliberate attempt" to avoid it appearing anywhere. I strongly recommend you revert that comment because it too is a veiled personal attack that fails to assume the "good faith" of another editor. Otherwise we need to get an admin. involved here because I'm getting a little tired of all these personal attacks.
    Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 12:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • You deliberately removed an uncategorized tag with this edit, stating that "it is not an article", which it patently is. Now you are arguing it should be kept as an article!?! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • What is so difficult about this single "Background" paragraph for you to understand? I removed the "article needs to be categorized" tag because I believed the article was internal to the actual season article I had linked it to as a subpage. I viewed that subpage as being exactly like subpages in my own personal space and I didn't want a page that was NOT in article space being misclassified by a bot with possibly faulty logic. I did this twice. The third time I did it the author of the bot posted on my Talk page and said that everything in article space had to be categorized (which the bots normally do) or flagged as requiring categorization (by a human). It was only THEN I realized I had ALSO put this subpage into article space when I created it. Once created, a page can only be moved within article space but NOT deleted by a user.

I wasn't sure what to do at this juncture so I started a new thread (the one you linked above) on Falastur2's Talk page to ask him what he thought and he is the one that felt that this subpage should really be a standalone article, but that it must minimally address any failings that caused it to be deleted during the last AfD process (which was mostly due to people claiming "lack of notability" because that version of the article failed to clearly establish that point). I felt his arguments were sound which is why I'm now supporting that this page be kept as an individual article in its own right. There's nothing sinister going on here and if you had only bothered to read the "hang on" arguments that successfully overturned your initial unmerited attempt to speedy delete this article you would have known that. However, counter to clear WP:AGF guidance, you have now chosen twice to sidetrack this AfD discussion by assuming that the actions of other editors were not made in "good faith" and have instead gone out of your way to cast false aspersions on them here. Since you cannot conduct yourself in a more harmonious and mature manner I will now have to get a neutral admin. to intervene at this point. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry 22:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. MLITH is also arguing this article should be kept because it would "skew" the content of the Manchester City 2003–04 season article. Yet presently there is no text whatsoever in the relevant section of that article, and only a passing mention in the season overview. The cart is being placed before the horse. Expand the season article with relevant information. If that one match then dominates the season article, then it may be appropriate to consider the need for a standalone match article. Not the other way round. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates