Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season/FA Cup Fourth round replay - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Walls of Jericho (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 13 April 2011 (Delete.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:05, 13 April 2011 by Walls of Jericho (talk | contribs) (Delete.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 See 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. Consider this example. I am the first person to write an article on Shakespeare but my article is full of factual errors and typos, poorly sourced, and doesn't mention alternative POVs (such as Oxfordian theory). So it gets a universal thumbs down to delete it as not worthy of being a Misplaced Pages article. Now someone such as the late Samuel Schoenbaum posts a much better quality article here that everybody likes. If someone who did not personally like SS then nominated that article for AfD and a number of clueless types voted to "delete" during that AfD process on the basis that an article on Shakespeare had already been previously AfD-ed, Misplaced Pages wouldn't get very far in attaining better quality articles, now would it? Thus 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. Personally, I think it is one of the best derbies I've witnessed despite the unsavory result. :( 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. You could argue to you're blue in the face that, say, Ernest Rutherford was as good, if not better, a physicist as Albert Einstein. But if you go out in the streets and ask random people passing by what immediately comes into their mind when you mention the term "great physicist" they will invariably describe someone that looks a lot like Einstein. Very few people, if any, will describe someone who looks like Rutherford - even if you conduct your poll on Deansgate! That's because Einstein is now an archetype (or cliché) for what people imagine a physicist to be like, despite the fact that thousands of other physicists (before or since) don't look at all like him. It's the same kind of difference between these 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)
  • 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)
Categories: