Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.

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. As pointed out, whilst a team coming from 3-0 down to win 4-3 is unusual - especially with ten men - it's hardly unique. As pointed out, it did have lots of coverage, but on the other hand the nature of top-flight sport in the UK (or the US for that matter) is such that this is unsurprising. And WFC is correct, this AfD (and the other similar one which I closed in the same manner) should not be taken as precedents, each article should be examined individually. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.

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

A football league match like many others, which easily fails into WP:NOTNEWS and cannot be identified as anything special in the game history. I had started a discussion on WP:FOOTY about the notability of such article before nominating it, and it quickly emerged that most of the project users agree with this game not being notable on its own (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.. Angelo (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable match. Giant Snowman 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Angelo, with all due respect you started a debate on whether to remove these games, got a few responses over the course of two hours then made this AfD. If you want to base your decision on the consensus in that debate then you moved far too quickly - two hours just doesn't give time for people to respond, and true to form, the debate has now received a raft of opinions supporting keeping these articles. If you are simply proposing deletion on your own terms, then I fall back on the argument that what game is notable has not been defined properly by WP:Football and thus I would argue that their notability is set out by the fact that these are two of the more famous individual matches in English football history and they aren't even cup finals to boot. More detail on the debate page you linked above. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few individual football matches are notable in and of themselves - this isn't one of them. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I have no opinion whether the game meets the GNG - it's up to Stevo1000 and Falastur2 to produce evidence of lasting notability (rather than next-day reports). But I must admit that any game when a side losing 0:3 was able to turn the tables in their favor is something special. I'd really like to keep this article. Unfortunately, our opinions on "something special" are not enough. East of Borschov 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's something special for the team that wins, sure, but it happens regularly and therefore isn't notable for this encyclopedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not too regularly, at least in the top leagues. By the same logic, hat tricks also happen regularly; would you take List of Premier League hat-tricks to AFD? East of Borschov 21:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd take an article about an individual hat-trick to AfD. As this is one individual game, that comparison bears up better :p Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Newspaper reports the day after the game aside, I can't find anything to grant this notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angelo, with all due respect you started a debate on whether to remove these games, got a few responses over the course of two hours then made this AfD. If you want to base your decision on the consensus in that debate then you moved far too quickly - two hours just doesn't give time for people to respond, and true to form, the debate has now received a raft of opinions supporting keeping these articles. If you are simply proposing deletion on your own terms, then I fall back on the argument that what game is notable has not been defined properly by WP:Football and thus I would argue that their notability is set out by the fact that these are two of the more famous individual matches in English football history and they aren't even cup finals to boot. More detail on the debate page you linked above. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC) -[reply]
Keep' - Here here Falstur. Angelo not being rude, you really need to stop going round like a dictator deleting whatever he wishes willy nilly and value other user's contributions more. Having created these two match pages, the fact that the Tottenham 9-1 Wigan page is still allowed to remain, yet these two pages are up for deletion is totally wrong. Furthermore their is no official rule/line on separate match pages on Wikipedia, therefore no one has any right to delete other Wikipedia user's hard work and contributions. Their appears to be good support to keep this page, but our arguments appear to be falling on deaf eyes. Like I say, I reiterate the rightful stance, that there is no official line/rule on separate match pages, therefore this cannot possibly be deleted, unless a proper Wikipedia guideline is enforced. (Stevo1000 Talk 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, no-one has tried to delete this article "willy-nilly" - it was brought here for discussion and will be deleted or otherwise by community consensus. That's exactly what AfD is for. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to ask you again to please stop attacking me. This is lasting way too long, and I am increasingly getting sick and tired of it. Also, I haven't deleted anything at all (the article still lies there, and cannot be deleted by me btw), so you're just saying a big lie over there. All I did was to find the article and nominate it for deletion on the grounds described above, and I am not the only one who agrees with such opinion as you can see in this page. If you have some point to mention, please do it politely, especially without attacking other users (which is absolutely unacceptable). Regards, --Angelo (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not "attacking" you at all, just trying to make sure you understand my comments and thoughts which I feel have gone largely unheeded on your part. And finally, like you probably, I can't be bothered continuing this silly disagreement with you which is growing into a irritating inconvenience. It is clear that we both just cannot agree, and hopefully we won't cross each others' path again. Shame really as that isn't what Wikipedia is about (Stevo1000 Talk 00:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the closing admin making explicitly clear that future cases should be considered on their own merits. This match, on its own merits, fails the GNG. I am sure that there are other matches that fall into this category that will also need to be AfD'd. However, I see the statement "like many others" as a strong indication that the nominator intends to use this as a precident. Matches that are not automatically notable (generally speaking, anything that isn't a cup final) should be considered on their own merits as to whether they pass or fail the GNG. --W F C-- 00:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or again userfy to User:Falastur2 if he wants it. Again, not a significantly notable match in and of itself, but appropriate inclusion for a ManCity season article if one were to exist. There is no real basis for inclusion as a stand alone article as it is "just another football match" of which there have been literally millions. It is not the first, nor will it be the last time a team has come from behind.--ClubOranje^T 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I'm going to copy-paste this article to my userspace "for safe keeping", but I remain to be convinced that this match is non-notable, nor do I concede the point. In my eyes, the very comment "The greatest comeback ever?" - which is the article title for a cited BBC link in the article in question - should tell the whole story of why this match is notable. Falastur2 ^Talk 00:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this match is notable, then literally hundreds of thousands of similar matches are notable. This could form part of the two clubs' season articles, but not a standalone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen plenty of other similar comebacks in the early stages of the FA Cup. Nothing special about a team being 3-0 down winning 4-3. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the match has not received coverage other than routine reports in the days following the game. No indication that the match is notable enough for its own article. Big Dom 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game. --Carioca (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the proof that this match is notable beyond the norm is in the first two references cited in the article. Just a glance at them shows it. --Dweller (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coming from being behind 3-0 in an away fixture to win 3-4 is not exactly an everyday occurrence, but I would agree with many people here that such an achievement in association football may still have happened enough other times so as to be not particularly notable, or notable enough. However, that, by itself, is not why this game is considered notable. It is considered to be notable because of a criterion that most people here are completely overlooking in jumping to their conclusions (or alternatively, in exercising their own biased agendas). The missing criterion is that the team coming from behind did so with only ten men. Exactly how many times has THAT happened before?

I challenge anyone who has posted on this page to vote to have this article deleted to cite some verifiably reliable references in order to prove your case. If someone can post here a number of such references to other top flight football games where the comeback team was

(1) at a numerical man disadvantage, in addition to

(2) an away venue disadvantage, and

(3) a three or more goal score deficit disadvantage

then I will vote along with you to have this article deleted. I'll leave it to others to decide how many such references are sufficient to prove your case. ITMT, I vote that this article remain in place because I personally cannot think of any other cases - and it is exactly that lack of other cases that would make this game particularly notable.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 04:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resp: 3 trivial intersections don't make it notable. I could come up with 3 equally trivial points to make almost any match notable under those guidelines. Motherwell coming back from 6-2 to draw where the comeback team a) missed a penalty, b) had a New Zealander playing for them, c) there was a full moon.

As for how many times the team coming from behind did so with only ten men Probably dozens if you look world wide, but for something closer to home try 1957, Charlton, Hudderfield, Charlton played 70 minutes with only 10 men, 5-1 down with 20 minutes to go, won 7-6.

A gsearch for "greatest comeback ever" produces millions of results. All 100% POV. For every one that thinks this game was it, there are a hundred other pundits that don't. Its trivial POV fancruft and belongs in a fanblog, not an encyclopedia. If it is Man City's biggest claim to fame by all means mention it in a season article, but the only ones that seem to see it as notable are City fans. ClubOranje^T proud contributor to Wikipedia, the trivia-almanac that anyone can edit 07:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, trivial intersections are irrelevant. All that is relevant is WP:V. We have two reliable sources here, each of which makes a strong claim for this being an important match in the history of one of the clubs involved. That makes this article entirely suitable for keeping. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it? By that token, there are literally millions of notable football matches. Accrington beat Doncaster last night, and that was important to Accrington. I can find reliable sources that satisfy WP:V about how vital and unprecendented this result was, but I'm not pretending it's a notable match. It surely has to be notable within the context of football as a whole, and obviously this game isn't that important. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put it another way. Is the match sufficiently notable to be included in a history of the club? Like cup finals are. Like the Bon Accord one. We have two RS saying it is. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resp - They are NOT 3 trivial intersections. All 3 of my listed disadvantageous conditions go to the heart of what defines a "comeback" in any walk of life (not just sport) - viz. a return to a former higher rank, popularity, position or prosperity. In this particular case they define the conjunction of disadvantageous conditions that had to be overcome in order for a team to turn almost certain defeat into unexpected victory. Exactly what part would a blue moon, missing a penalty, or fielding a New Zealander play in causing the spectating crowd to almost unanimously expect, right up until the very end of the game, the complete opposite outcome in a football match? Your argument is pure smoke and mirrors casuistry that any 8 year old can see is irrelevant.

Despite my Wikipedia handle I really don't have a dog in this race, but it was clear to me that prior to my own post here most of the people voting to delete were doing so because they were only considering one or two of the three relevant criteria. I would just like to see the article deleted (if that is indeed the outcome of this AfD) for all the right objective reasons, and NOT because someone claims he got a "two hour consensus" on the matter (and I would suggest that the very concept of a "two hour consensus" is worthy of a Wikipedia article in its own right, because I, for one, would genuinely like to learn how that process works). I agree with you that any web search for "greatest comeback ever" stories will produce many (maybe not quite millions, but you seem to quite enjoy subjectively stacking your arguments) of results, all of which are 100% POV. However, I'm not defending this article from such a fanbase viewpoint. My defense of it is on a purely verifiable factual basis.

The point of my previous post was to try and establish some level of objectivity in this issue amongst all the biased dismissive handwaving and hidden personal agendas. Your own citation of the Charlton-Huddersfield game goes right to the heart of the matter. Were Charlton the away side in that match or did they have the "twelth man" advantage of a home crowd? If they were playing at home then I'm afraid it doesn't count. But if you, or others, can still come up with a list of such games that establishes that my three conjoined criteria are still not all that special or notable then, as stated above, I will agree with you and change my vote to 'delete'. It's that simple. But please provide some facts in this debate to support your position for deletion and NOT just bogus side issues such as NZ players and blue moons that are not even pertinent. Or by latching onto just one of the defining criteria and conveniently ignoring the others in order to support your own case.

The real issue here, as others have pointed out already, is that there is no clearly defined criteria for what constitutes "notability". But if this article goes then a whole slew of others (such as the "Battles of Old Trafford" articles) almost certainly have to go too. As for your, "Its trivial POV fancruft and belongs in a fanblog, not an encyclopedia" statement, it probably applies to most of the Association Football (and other sport) articles currently in Wikipedia. You won't find anywhere near the amount of text dedicated to such sporting trivia in a real encyclopedia created by subject matter experts such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, where there is probably not an entry for the "Theatre of Dreams" nor an entry for the now demolished Maine Road stadium. In the larger scheme of things, almost anything to do with soccer is pretty much trivia for the masses and not considered worthy of being addressed, except in the most minimal terms, by any self-respecting encyclopedia. So be very careful what you wish for.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 16:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your original challenge, for a start this wasn't a league match - it was a cup game. Anyway, even though I watched the Spurs-Man City game in a pub, one game stands out as far more memorable - Tranmere 4 Southampton 3 in 2001. Even though the winners did have home advantage and were not a man down, they were a division below the opposition and came back from 3-0 down. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point? I never said it was a league match. I acknowledge that being in a lower tier of a nation's football pyramid would probably constitute a fourth disadvantageous criterion for a "comeback team" in addition to the three criteria I originally listed, but it didn't apply to this match. Although, if that same cup-tie had happened a few seasons earlier when Manchester City were still a Championship team then it would have done. In the case of the Tranmere cup-tie game that you just cited, although it meets your new fourth criterion, it only meets one out of the original three I listed. So it's not a notable game. Very memorable, perhaps ... just not notable. BTW, I don't really hold with the view that all FA Cup and League Cup finals are automatically notable games. There has been something like 120+ FA Cup finals (quite a few more if you include the replay finals) since the first one was played back in 1872 - they cannot ALL be notable. IMO there was nothing particularly notable about this last one between Chelsea and Portsmouth - the outcome of that match was quite predictable even before a ball was kicked.

You said "If someone can post here a number of such references to other top flight football games" I think this is clearly saying it was a league match. And in response to "it's not a notable game", please can you direct me to the policy which defines them? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, that 1957 Charlton Athletic - Huddersfield Town game is indeed a notable game, because although it does not meet the "away game" criterion, there are possibly a lot of other new criteria it does meet. Five of Charlton's seven goals were scored by Johnny Summers, and the other two were assists by him. The goals were scored in a very short period of time; Summers' five goals include a 5-minute hat-trick. Additionally, it's the only game I know of that a team scored 6 goals and still did not win the game. All of those events in that game are rather rare to my mind, such that taken all together, they make that particular comeback rather special ... and thus notable. However, reducing high score deficits, or a team being an underdog or a rank outsider, or a team with less men performing better than one would expect them to do, or quick hat-tricks, are NOT sufficient in of themselves to make a game notable, because as rare as those events may be, they are still not rare enough. But put those sort of rare factors together (as long as they are factors related to the issue, and not just random facts such as NZ players and blue moons) such that you get "rare" cubed or to the power four, then that becomes statistically very significant, and thus notable.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe merge if anyone can think of a decent target. A great match, but not a notable one. Coverage is all fairly routine and most of it is news reports from just after the event, which raises WP:NOTNEWS issues. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decent target being club season article or FA cup season article.--ClubOranje^T 20:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per discussion here. gonads³ 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A learned friend dropped me a line with the following extra RS:

([1]) (7 October 2001) chooses Charlton winning 7-6 over Huddersfield in 1958 over, for example, the Stanley Matthews FA Cup final in 1953, or Manchester United against Bayern Munich in 1999, or ManU beating Tottenham 5-3 earlier in 2001. But this article does mention the 2004 match in the context of the 10 greatest comebacks in any sport. ([2]) (6 February 2004) also opts for Charlton as the greatest comeback of all time, but again discusses Man City vs Spurs in that context. The Independent include the 4-3 result in their top 10 FA Cup comebacks - ([3]) - although half of them come after 1990. Remarkably, there does not seem to be a Wikiepedia article on Charlton 7 Huddersfield 6, but there are lots of sources - for example, ([4])

So, two more RS describing this match as historic, this time, in the context of the history of football. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps a "List of notable football comebacks" is in order - I can't see each match meriting an individual article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go back to brass tacks. I assume we agree that the most significant football matches deserve their own articles? Cup finals, World Cup finals, the Bon Accord game? And I presume we agree that run of the mill matches (Norwich v Gillingham in the League Cup this week) do not? The question is the grey area in between. I'd argue strongly (and have done before) that any game that you would mention in a history of football, of a competition, or of a notable team deserves its own article. Hence Bayern Munich v Norwich City. This is subjective, of course, but not necessarily POV. I'll explain: for Bayern, that match is an insignificant embarrassment. But for Norwich, it's historic. And it's not POV, because we have RS saying so. For this article, we have RS saying it's historic in terms of the FA Cup and it's clearly historic in terms of the history of Manchester City. Two reasons for keeping. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A match being historically important to one of the clubs is not a reason to have an article on it - that would leave us with literally thousands of football match articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Just because an article is in a mainstream newspaper, doesn't mean to say it is encyclopaedic fact. it's not POV, because we have RS saying so is a flawed argument. Just because it is stated in a newspaper, doesn't make it so. All the references to this being greatest comeback etc are still simply POV on behalf of the journalists who wrote such sensationalism. Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It should deal with verifiable facts not verifiable opinions.--ClubOranje^T 01:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for all the arguments for and against deletion on here, gonads³ is the only one who has put forward a compelling and good argument backing up notability of the match in the media. Remember, this match was with a team who were 3-0 down, worse off down to 10 men with Joey Barton being his usual self and then they go and score 4 goals in 1 half away from home. I think I have a good grasp of football knowledge, but I can't think of any other comeback as worthy as this one in professional football (Stevo1000 Talk 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT--ClubOranje^T 11:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was that me? :) gonads³ 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable article and is already well referenced, but here are some further references [5][6][7]
Keep per my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. The "match report" could use inline citations, though.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, "this is a non-notable event, delete"? Hmm, really? List of notable references which prove the event is "notable":

Is it any wonder I'm annoyed at some of the comments on here? Why are we here having this discussion about an event that is apparently deemed "non-notable". This comeback was special and a one-off Wikipedia page is perfectly fine as the quotes in the references state. The page should stand in my view, it clearly is a famous comeback and the question "Is this notable enough?" is subjective. It would be a disgrace if this page was deleted, Wikipedia shouldn't be like this Stevo1000 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that a lot of these sources have some serious problems. Of the seven you've provided (and well done on finding so many), links 1 and 2 are news report (see WP:NOTNEWS), link 3 is broken, and links 4, 5 and 7 don't qualify as significant coverage. That only leaves this, which does indeed help to establish notability, but WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Find one more significant non-news source and you've done it - but these seven alone aren't quite enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying my best here. Oh and here is the repaired Daily Mail link, should work now:

Daily Mail - 4 May 2010, "2004, Spurs 3 City 4 - An FA Cup classic"

Other references I've found:

Whoateallthepies.tv, "Top Five Man City v Tottenham Videos - 1. Spurs 3-4 Man City, 2004, An astonishing FA Cup comeback by City, who were 3-0 down at halftime"
Footballfancast, "Tottenham 3-4 Manchester City (2004): Not a Premier League match but a classic nonetheless and goes down as one of the greatest comebacks in FA Cup history. Spurs raced into a three goal lead in the first half at White Hart Lane, but City (minus Joey Barton) weren’t about to render the second half as academic as Martin Tyler suggested. Andy Gray’s “I’ve seen it, but I still don’t believe it” says it all…"
Sportingo, "Football's greatest comeback kings - 1. Tottenham 3 - Manchester City 4 (FA Cup, Feb. 4, 2004) - Ten-man Manchester City pulled off an amazing FA Cup comeback to earn a fifth round tie at Manchester United. Spurs led 3-0 at half time and Joey Barton received a second yellow card for dissent seconds after the half-time whistle sounded, yet Tottenham managed to throw a seemingly unassailable lead away."
Boxofficefootball, 29 July 2009, "The greatest ever comeback in F.A Cup history? Manchester City down to ten men 3-0 down then comeback to win 3-4 In February 2004 has to be right up there as one of the best your ever see. As kevin Kegan quoted after the game They’ll talk about this game long after we’ve all gone he was not wrong."
Premiershiptalk, 8 March 2010, "Ten-man Manchester City pulled off an amazing FA Cup comeback to earn a fifth round tie at Manchester United back in 2004. Tottenham led 3-0 at half-time after Ledley King , Robbie Keane, and Christian Ziege all scored in the first 45 minutes. City’s Joey Barton was sent off for a second booking when the score was 3-0 but Sylvain Distin, Paul Bosvelt, and Shaun Wright-Phillips leveled the tie before Jonathan Macken headed a late winner.Kevin Keegan said: “They’ll talk about this game long after we’ve all gone”. We are still talking about it now, Kev."

I know this is a news report, but it backs up the claims that this was a special comeback in English football and is a notable event:

The Guardian "This may well be as great a comeback as English football has ever known and Spurs' humiliation must be of corresponding proportions. Just for a while, the entire City side looked superhuman last night."

I could probably find more, but surely this has to be strong evidence for keeping the page Stevo1000 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep okay, so from my point of a view, a combination of WP:NOTPAPER with clear WP:N (due to coverage in a number of reliable sources, and clearly WP:V from that) means that this, an event with multiple third-party coverage, which has stood the test of time (albeit a few years) is still notable enough for coverage in this encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up despite your doubts Stevo1000 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"find-a-link" - always a fun game!

http://www.soccerphile.com/soccerphile/news/comebacks.html says it is not even in the top 20 comebacks
http://www.thefootballtube.com/videos/7615/best-football-comeback-ever-inter---sampdoria-0405.html says Inter-Sampodoria was the greatest comeback
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/5greatest-comebacks-in-football.html says it wasn't in the top 5
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,562527,00.html only has one football comeback in the top 10 for all sports, but it is not this one (bigger comeback, also with 10 men)

and thousands more, all of which show it is purely subjective opinion on what is a great comeback.

Virtually all links provided in support of notability are blogs (not WP:RS), news reports directly after the event (WP:NOTNEWS), match preview flashback (general sports journalism failing WP:NTEMP) and generally not "indepth coverage" so actually do not pass WP:GNG. None of them pass WP:V except to verify that the game took place, but since the arguments for keep centre around it being notable as the"greatest comeback in history" they fail WP:V in that - as shown by these links - the status as "greatest comeback" is purely subjective and therefore does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Yes it was a good spectacle as many football games are, but it is not encyclopaedic.--ClubOranje^T 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many proper RS cited on this page and in the article. I agree some are blogs, but many are not. The commentor above who has discounted some sources because they are from newspapers is astonishing. WP:NOTNEWS does not preclude the use of newspapers as sources. Finding sources that don't include foo in a list of the "20 best things relating to foo" does not wipe out the sources that do include foo in lists of 30 greatest things related to foo. It merely means that there is dissent - something that should be noted in the article. Like, for example, creationist opposition to the theory of evolution should be noted in the article about evolution - it is not an argument for deleting it. (And vice versa). --Dweller (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fell free to twist my words, "news reports directly after the event (WP:NOTNEWS)" is what I wrote, at no time precluding the use of newspapers as sources where such use is appropriate.--ClubOranje^T 11:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four links provided there by ClubOranje, the only reliable one is the last one which was written three years before this match took place so it's not surprising that the match was omitted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point - they were supposed to be comparatively similar; a blog, a mag, a newspaper... The point is ALL the links are unreliable. Mine, Stevo1000's, Dweller's, the ones in the article....because they all fail the basic test of reliability: WP:VERIFIABILITY. There is NO verification that this is the greatest comeback as that is entirely subjective. It is demonstrable that there have been other comebacks from more goals down, in less time, with less parity between teams. Unencyclopedic POV supported by systemic bias. Nothing more.--ClubOranje^T 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I just wondered why you said the fourth ref had only one football comeback, but "not this one". It was because it hadn't been played at the time. But thanks for clearing up my missed point. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To repeat myself, dubious notability aside, if kept, shouldn't the page be moved? That's not a title, that's a score, with no date! That'd be like having the 2003 Heritage Classic article at Montreal Canadiens 4 - 3 Edmonton Oilers. How many such games finished with that score? Plus I don't see why this shouldn't be merged to the appropriate football club article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (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.