Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict

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. — Caknuck 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict[edit]

The article is poorly written, not notable and non-neutral. PeeJay 13:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with this AfD. The article is about a minor incident (based on the background of problems at football grounds), and very non-NPOV, as shown by the refusal of Daddy Kindsoul to allow any edits that don't correspond with his view, wheter referenced or not. Darkson - I have a dream 14:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article. IP198 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP198. And stay cool. You guys would rather get rid of an article you've been working on, than work together for an unbias article? Until consensus can be reached the NPOV tag is sufficient. --Evb-wiki 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and notable event.--Vintagekits 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It would make much more sense to put the information in an article about violence at football matches as nothing really stands out to make this event any different from other football conflicts this year.Spugmeister 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – {{sofixit}}. The article is notable and well-referenced; AfD and RfAr are not good solution for simple article disputes. Keeping a cool head and attempting to reach a compromise are. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article clearly establishing notability, other reasons not relevant here. Davewild 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced incident, has been the subject of significant third party coverage.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep At first I was inclined toward the views of Spugmeister. As a stand-alone article, the subject is of questionable notability given the many similar football incidents. The article should not be merged into UEFA_Champions_League_2006-07#Quarter-finals as that article appropriately lists results. Cleaned-up, and allowing that some issues arising from this very recent incident still stand to be clarified/confirmed, it seems to merit further life. Pever 17:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article cites plenty of references but does need cleanup. Not only is it poorly written, it reads more like a news article than encyclopedic entry. I have added the {{copyedit}} template. --Nonstopdrivel 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask that some of the editiors that have said "keep and edit" could try, because every time Peejay and myself have tried, we are reverted and accused of bias. Darkson - I have a dream 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article needs work including adjusting the POV more neutrally, but the reliable sources are present which demonstrate the subject's notability. A lttle elbow grease and it should be fine. JodyB_talk 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable event and the article is also well-sourced. --Carioca 19:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:04, 18 June 2007 (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.