Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, European Cup Semi Final 1984

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. Despite severall well reasoned keep !votes backed up with references, the consensus appears to be that the references supplied are trivial, barely cover the subject, or come from sources with very specific interest. Consensus appears to be delete. v/r - T P 23:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, European Cup Semi Final 1984[edit]

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

Match is not notable at all especially compared to other Liverpool matches. The article almost entirely consists of quotes from autobiographies and there is no media coverage to suggest it was a notable match. NapHit (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a well-referenced article. The match is notable as an international match. Indeed, a football match between a "Western" football club and a football team from the "Eastern Bloc" during the Cold War gives this event significant notability. Fans of the Liverpool and the Dinamo Bucharest football clubs will find this article especially interesting. I really wish people would stop trying to delete articles simply because THEY are not interested in the subject matter. Further more, it is especially offensive that this article has been nominated for deletion just ONE day after its creation. Deterence ^Talk 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you find it offensive, that I nominated the article after one day then tough. Rules are rules they are there for a reason, the match has no notablity. The fact that it was a western team against an eastern bloc team is in no way notable as this happened throughput the 70s and 80s, should those matches have articles? No because they have no lasting impact.

Speaking of "rules are rules", learn how to format and sign your comments. Deterence ^Talk 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No records were set in this match, it's not the final of any competition, and it's not exactly a memorable game. Sure, it was physical, but it's hardly ever mentioned in the media, and media mentions are required to determine notability. – Pee Jay 13:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No media coverage right after the match has been presented, which is a shame, but there are references to plenty of substantial coverage years later, which in wiki-notability terms counts for more. Books are entirely suitable for demonstrating notability, in fact they may often be more suitable than newspapers. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says what is a reliable source depends on the context. A newspaper may well be best for the score and the match attendance; a book for how the match fitted into the general situation of European soccer at that time. Thincat (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say that about a lot of matches in the last 50 years. Are we really saying we should have an article for any match that a few players remembered quite well in their autobiographies? – PeeJay 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I am not saying there should (in the sense of ought to or must) be an article, I am saying it is permitted to have an article. Thincat (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Was not a final and no records were broken. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game continues to resonate nearly thirty years after it was played, and is covered in particular detail in various players' autobiographies (I have included only Rush’s and Kennedy’s, there are at least two others that could be used to bolster the article [Dalglish's and Hansen's; unfortunately I don’t have them with me now but have read them]); in addition various other references could be used from official LFC Encyclopaedias, not to mention media references closer to the time the game was played (this would entail a trip to the library which sadly I am unable to undertake at present). In fact, the article is at a young stage and can be embellished and improved considerably, and I would suggest that it is far too premature to delete it. The person who nominated the deletion did so with the words "Match is not notable at all especially compared to other Liverpool matches" but this is a vague and inaccurate assertion and in the context of Liverpool's halcyon period the game is certainly memorable and historic for players, supporters and journalists and has over the years taken on a legendary status. The person who nominated it also wrote "The article almost entirely consists of quotes from autobiographies" but since when have major autobiographies published by major publishing houses not been WP:RS? Again, the amount of detail gone into by these players regarding this match far outweighs any other Liverpool match from the period, including certain finals. Jprw (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game does not continue to resonate after thirty years. Just because former players write about in their autobiographies does not make it a notable match. If that's the case then surely there should be an article for every match that players mention?. Look at the other Liverpool matches that are articles that were not finals. The Liverpool v Arsenal really does resonate after all this time because it was a significant match and has been featured in the media. Likewise the other three. Where has this game been mentioned in the media? I would like to see some links. The point that is made is that if this game is an article why not other semi-finals that Liverpool took part in? Why not the recent Chelsea ones or the 1981 one with Bayern Munich? The assertion that the game has taken on a legendary status is your view I'm afraid. Just because you think that, does not mean the game warrants an article. Yes player's autobiographies are RS, but the fact that the game is not extensively covered in the media after the match means it is not a notable match and should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To take your assertions point by point:

The game does not continue to resonate after thirty years.

Yes it does. It is frequently referred to in the media (compared to other matches from that era and only last week was the subject of a lengthy discussion on the club's official website).

If it is 'frequently referred to in the media' then I'm sure you wouldn't mind providing a few links. By links I mean ones that provide the match as the main focus of the link, not links like the New York Times one which provides a paragraph on one moment of two matches. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because former players write about in their autobiographies does not make it a notable match.

Yes it does, especially if it's the likes of Kenny Dalglish and Ian Rush referring to it at length in critically acclaimed books.

If that's the case then surely there should be an article for every match that players mention?

The point I keep trying to make and which other editors seem unable to grasp (not just you) is that when this game is mentioned in footballers' autobiographies it is with a disproportionate amount of additional detail compared to other matches they mention. It is clearly more notable, more memorable, and has more incidents which distinguish it from other games.

Look at the other Liverpool matches that are articles that were not finals. The Liverpool v Arsenal really does resonate after all this time because it was a significant match and has been featured in the media. Likewise the other three. Where has this game been mentioned in the media? I would like to see some links. The point that is made is that if this game is an article why not other semi-finals that Liverpool took part in? Why not the recent Chelsea ones or the 1981 one with Bayern Munich?

As for these matches that you mention (Liverpool v Arsenal I presume you mean the 89 title decider) I see no reason why they shouldn't have their own Wikipedia articles, particularly the Chelsea one because of all the extra connotations with the ghost goal, etc. So you can't use that argument as a justification to delete this article I'm afraid. Perhaps this is simply an area that needs expanding within Wikipedia.

The assertion that the game has taken on a legendary status is your view I'm afraid.

Not at all. For anyone with a knowledge of Liverpool Football Club over the last 40-50 years, this is a legendary game. That is just stating the obvious.

Just because you think that, does not mean the game warrants an article. Yes player's autobiographies are RS, but the fact that the game is not extensively covered in the media after the match means it is not a notable match and should be deleted.

But it is covered in the media. Look at the references – even the New York Times discusses it. In fact, there are more media references than autobiographical references. I'm sorry, but your overall arguments seem to be blasé, ill thought out, and illogical. Jprw (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No its not discussed that IS the point. One paragraph in article about Graeme Souness having triple bypass surgery is not discussing the matches as its main subject. That is not media coverage of the match, that is media coverage of Souness himself. The fact that their were two matches and yet their are no links that deal solely with the match means it is not notable. Your basing your arguments on your belief that the match is notable, which is 'ill thought out' as this does not concur with Wikipedia policy. The point I'm making is that apart from Souness breaking the jaw of a Bucharest player nothing notable happened in either match. There is not significant coverage of the topic in the media. After reading the article there is nothing that makes the article notable at all. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state for the record that the article is barely a day old and that there are other references and images that I have yet to include. Jprw (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Few references that actually establish notability and no more notable than any other semi-final. Adam4267 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – For me to consider an article on a non-final notable, I'd want to see some evidence that the match received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond the time fram e when it was held. I don't see that proof here. The sources in the article are a mix of primary sources and articles that aren't about this match in particular. To offer a comparison, Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989) apparently has a book written about it, along with a substantial Guardian article. Those are the kind of sources that we need to prove an individual game's notability. Unless something along those lines can be found for this article, I don't think it should stay. Hopefully the other references to be included will improve matters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me to consider an article on a non-final notable, I'd want to see some evidence that the match received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond the time frame when it was held.

It does. Look at the sources. And where does it say that only finals can have their own articles?Jprw (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Non-notable football match and nothing indicating its notability. As for the reasoning to keep it, of course players will talk about it in their autobiography, its their autobiography! If I wrote an autobiography I'd include the greatest 5 a side matches I've played in, that wouldn't make them notable though. TonyStarks (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable football match and nothing indicating its notability. I find this baffling. How can the semi-final of the European Cup not be notable? This match is certainly more notable and significant than, say, the 1987 Littlewoods Cup final. It is also the biggest game in D Bucharest's history. It is still talked about in the media and referred to at length in players' autobiographies and footballing encyclopaedias. What is the problem? Jprw (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable historic LFC matches which do not have a WP article but should: 1977 QF vs. St Etienne; 2005 SF vs. Chelsea; 1989 title decider vs. Arsenal. This is an area in WP that needs expanding, and this has been something positive to have come out of this discussion.Jprw (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is only a couple of days old. It's already well written and well referenced but I expect it to improve still. Being a European Cup semi final makes it notable. bbx (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cup semi-finals are not independently notable, and I see no other notability here. Giant Snowman 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally, I would say a semi-final is not in itself notable. However there is a case that this particular one has received coverage by multiple reliable sources and thus meets our general notability guidelines. The lead section gives an indication of why this match is considered notable and the article in general is appropriately-written. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please do not try to draw me into the long, ongoing argument re: this article. I do not care one iota about Liverpool FC, games "echoing through the ages", other semi-finals which may-or-may-not be more/less/equally important, etc. I'm simply going by my interpretation of the guidelines. Thanks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Twelve out of seventeen refs listed come from either specialized media outlets which are obsessed with Liverpool FC and Liverpool FC only or ex-Liverpool FC players' autobiographies, and two out of the remaining five point to UEFA's website with nothing but a scoreline, proving only that the match really occurred. There's very little here to suggest that the match is regarded as notable to anyone outside Liverpool. The conclusion Jprw drew above (This is an area in WP that needs expanding, and this has been something positive to have come out of this discussion.) is concerning. Try explaining to non-football editing Wikipedians why a project which currently covers some 148,000 articles (92,000 of which are assessed as stubs) "needs expanding" into new and pretty uncharted territory. You could start by proving that the match was seen as notable by somebody not related to Liverpool before participating players decided to mention it in their autobiographies published in 2005 and 2009. You have over 20 years of newspaper archives and football books to dig through. Timbouctou (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2011 (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.