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

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 redirect to 1984_European_Cup_Final#Route_to_the_final. after deletion and then salt To explain the policy basis for the close, notability isn't inherited and derives in full or part from the presence of detailed secondary reliable sources. The failure to provide these is the reason for deletion. I have noted that the only sourced provided have been analyed and debunked so the outcome is clear. Since the match is covered elsewhere a redirect seems sensibl, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final

Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article does not meet notability requirments. Standard practice is only finals, record breaking matches or matches of significant notability should be created. This does not meet any. The majority of sources provided are from Liverpool related sources, (i.e. Players' books, local news, club news) which don't establish notability. The sources which are from national newspapers are not about the match itself but mostly the players (mainly Graeme Souness) or Liverpool winning the cup that season. In fact there doesn't appear to be one source about the match itself, neither contemporary nor current, which would definitely be needed to provide detail on the match and more importantly to establish it's lasting notability, which the article does not prove. Adam4267 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This is a spurious nomination and the nominator contradicts himself completely by stating "Standard practice is only finals, record breaking matches or matches of significant notability should be created" – this match easily qualifies for the last. Jprw (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: It's the second nomination of the same article. The first discussion resulted in a delete. CSD G4? Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 09:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Nomination is spurious, but not for reason Jprw suggests, but rather because the speedy ought to succeed. Recreation of a previously deleted article is reprehensible refusal to accept consensus; doing so without recourse to deletions for review suggests refusal to accept the principles and processes of Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: The article has gone through substantial revisions since the first deletion process. Therefore, submitting the article again in no way violates G4 here. In view of this, reprehensible refusal to accept consensus is a tad strong, please retract. Thank you. Jprw (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I retract nothing: no amount of revision of the article changes the notability of the match. Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You specifically had not taken into account the numerous references that were added since the first nomination for deletion, which precluded any G4 violation. At least have the decency to admit that, and that your reprehensible refusal to accept consensus comment was thus high handed and completely inappropriate. Jprw (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I have removed the highly inappropriate speedy template and commented at the article's talk page. The article was moved to user space and was then resubmitted through Articles for creation. This procedure is wholly within policy. I shall comment on the merits of the article at a later stage. Thincat (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I think the nominator sums up why the article should be deleted, as there is not one source dedicated solely to the match, this would be the main indicator of notability, as it confirms that the tie had historical resonance. For anyone unconnected to Liverpool, the match is wholly insignificant, the only interesting event that occurred in either match was Souness breaking a player's jaw, hardly grounds to create an article. The article itself is not up to encyclopaedic standards, it is mainly based on quotes and does not detail the events of the two matches. There is no reason for this article to exist and it should be deleted, especially as this was the consensus before. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. That is a shallow and lazy assessment that is laced with inaccuracies and dubious, ill-thought-out interpretations of what constitutes notability. It is also bizarre that you write about "historical resonance". This match is referred to more than any other I can think of (finals aside) in the media in modern coverage of Liverpool in Europe (maybe the 2005 S/F is an exception). And it is totally inaccurate to state that the tie is "wholly insignificant" for anyone unconnected to Liverpool – on what do you base this statement? The fact that Hansen, Dalglish and Rush (arguably the three most high-profile Liverpool players of the club's golden age) go out of their way to state at length that this was the most brutal and hostile event in their careers is an immediate indication of clear notability. Notability is also bolstered by the added interest / coverage generated by the Souness / Moliva incident and, of course, the fact that this was the semi-final of the European Cup. Anyway, all we can do is be governed by what officially constitutes notability under WP guidelines. According to this the article has enough secondary sources containing more than a trivial mention of the event. Thus the criteria for having a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia are satisfied. As a general comment, I really wish that editors would not engage in a knee-jerk reaction to delete articles without properly acquainting themselves with the facts / history of a case. It borders on the irresponsible. Jprw (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Referring to your belief that 'it is totally inaccurate to state that the tie is "wholly insignificant" for anyone unconnected to Liverpool.' Are you really suggesting that those who are not connected to Liverpool football club would recall this match as one of the greatest in the club's history because if that is what you are suggesting then I think you're mistaken. I don't appreciate you saying that editors would not engage in a knee-jerk reaction, without acquainting themselves with the facts, it's not irresponsible as you suggest. What is irresponsible is to go against consensus and recreate an article that had been deleted. As you mention facts I'm going to critique the refs, as the article doesn't have enough secondary sources containing more than a trivial mention of the event to prove this I'm going to list what each secondary source mentions about the match.

Ref 1 - two sentences at the end of the article, and its from the Sun hardly the most reliable source Ref 2 - one sentence about the match Ref 3 - just redirects to the Times homepage Ref 10 - nothing about the match Ref 11 - not a reliable source and hardly any info anyway Ref 12 - finally details on the match but its from the club's official website so not a secondary source Ref 14 - see ref 11 Ref 15 - one paragraph about the match Ref 17 two sentence about Souness breaking Movila's jaw the only notable occurence of the two matches Ref 22 - not a secondary source Ref 23 - again just mentions Souness not the actual match Ref 24 - Souness again Ref 25 - Souness again one sentence Ref 26 - can't see anything referring to the matches Ref 28 - five paragraphs again concerning Souness Ref 29 - this is where the matches are mentioned the most yet its only two and a bit paragraphs not enough for a match you state 'is referred to more than any other I can think of (finals aside) in the media in modern coverage of Liverpool in Europe' if by referred you mean one or two sentences you are right. I'm not going to bother with the three remaining refs as they either concern Souness or are not secondary sources. It doesn't matter how many more refs there are since the last discussion, the fact is no reference refers to the match in the same vein that you are purporting. If the match was that historically significant then there would be refs referring to it in detail, yet there is not, which confirms my view that it is not more notable than any other semi-final that has been played in the European Cup or any other competition for that matter. NapHit (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that those who are not connected to Liverpool football club would recall this match as one of the greatest in the club's history because if that is what you are suggesting then I think you're mistaken.

That is pure conjecture on your part. Enough sports writers reference the match 25 years after the game to suggest that you yourself are mistaken. In addition, before the European Cup became the Champions League, the whole nation followed British teams' participation. Many football supporters, not just Liverpool ones, will remember these games.

Maybe so, but that does not mean it qualifies for its own article, the fact that there is not one secondary source that you can provide that has the match as the sole focus of the source proves in my opinion that the match is not notable, however many people remember it. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was this aspect that qualified it for a standalone article. I was replying to your specific assertion that no-one outside Liverpool FC would be familiar with the tie. Jprw (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you saying that editors would not engage in a knee-jerk reaction, without acquainting themselves with the facts, it's not irresponsible as you suggest.

I'm afraid that that is exactly what happened in the first, deeply flawed deletion process, and is happening again now. Editors were / are clearly not acquainting themselves with the facts and were / are taking it upon themselves to pass judgment too quickly. This is the first time that I have had to deal with the AFD process, and I have been alarmed at how easy it is for any editor to turn up on a page nominated for deletion, have an obviously cursory look at an article, and then vote to delete without examining the facts / features of the case in any kind of detail (Brad78 and Giant Snowman's verdicts below would be classic examples in this respect).

What are these facts you keep mentioning? I would like to know because I'm not sure you're reading the same article as me or you're seeing something differently to me. I think its a bit rich to say that editors have a brief look at the article and then vote delete. At the end of the day the article fails Wikipedia's own notability guidelines and that of the Wikipedia Football project so those editors that are involved in the football project and have seen similar non-notable matches like this before have articles about them created and have voted delete before. Its not because they haven't read the article its because from previous experience they know the event itself is non-notable. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The basic facts of the case – the article, its contents, structure, refs etc. The distinct impression I'm getting is that editors are turning up, having a quick look, and then casting their votes – a sort of bull-in-a-china-shop approach. As I said, I'm rather new to the AFD process and find this tendency disturbing. Also, you say those editors that are involved in the football project and have seen similar non-notable matches like this before have articles about them created and have voted delete before. Its not because they haven't read the article its because from previous experience they know the event itself is non-notable. If this is indded the case, it would, for example, be helpful if they shared this knowledge in some way and provided e.g. links to articles that failed AFD – that is, justify why they are voting to delete. Re: your claims on notability, you seem to be making a basic misinterpretation of WP guidelines. The article has enough secondary sources containing more than a trivial mention of the event, and the criteria for having a standalone article in the encyclopedia are thus satisfied. Moreover, the fact that Hansen, Dalglish, and Rush state (during lengthy descriptions of the event) that the tie was the most brutal and hostile event in their careers must surely serve as an additional indication of notability. I have no doubt that the article can enrich and be a welcome and appropriate addition to both the coverage of LFC on WP and articles related to the European Cup. Jprw (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What is irresponsible is to go against consensus and recreate an article that had been deleted.

Why are you bringing this up again? I have already pointed out twice that no WP procedures have been violated and that the G4 criteria re: renomination were fully satisfied. Please let's not go round in circles.

You do point out some inadequacies in the refs (I was particularly disappointed to find out that Times link has become a redirect, this is because the newspaper is subscription based. It is an outstanding quote from obviously an excellent secondary source), but these can either be easily fixed / improved (e.g. official UEFA records can be used for Ref 11). At the same time, you fail to acknowledge the more-than-a-passing mention to the match in a number of secondary sources, which establish notability under WP criteria.

Which references are the references that I have failed to acknowledge that have more-than-passing-mention of the match, because from reading them yesterday there were only two or three. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is only two or three, then that satisfies the basic criteria for notability. Since you acknowledge that at least these refs exist, I suggest that you do the honourable thing and reverse your vote to Keep. Jprw (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

By two or three I meant that they have one paragraph of material in them in article of about 10 paragraphs that's still a trivial mention and I'm not changing my vote, the article still fails notability guidelines. The fact still remains that there is not one source you can produce that is secondary that has the matches as the focus of the source. Until you produce said source, I can't be bothered arguing because my opinion is not going to change and neither is yours. As Brad78 states claiming the matches have notability because of the physical nature of the matches is ludicrous, so I can't be bothered indulging you when the article should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not making any kind of sense. Jprw (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically until you produce a number of refs that are secondary sources and that have the matches as the sole focus of the ref I can't be bothered arguing when neither of our opinions are going to change. NapHit (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

refs that are secondary sources and that have the matches as the sole focus of the ref But that isn't a criterion for establishing notability according to Wikipedia. It's a shame that we can't debate each point sensibly and rationally. Jprw (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I really do hope that enough editors take the trouble to take all these facts / features into account before passing judgement on the article, and that another miscarriage of justice can be averted. In my view the article still has the potential to be improved further (see my comment to MT below) and I think it can be a significant addition that will enrich WP's sporting articles. Regards, Jprw (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. For those recommending "delete" on notability grounds, it would be helpful to indicate why WP:SMERGE, for example to 1984_European_Cup_Final#Route_to_the_final, would not be appropriate. Thincat (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Half of the material in this article would not be necessary in an article about the final, as the article is primarily about the actual final. All that is needed is what is currently there, certainly don't need a whole paragraph of quotes from autobiographies. NapHit (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That isn't clear, what exactly do you mean? Jprw (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thincat is suggesting a merger into the 1984 European Cup Final, what I' stating is that there is no point as all that needs to be mentioned in the article on the final is the basics of how Liverpool beat Romania, as that article is primarily about the final. Merging paragraphs of quotes from autobiographies about a semi-final into an article about the final would be wrong. NapHit (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. However, I don't think a merge is necessary. I maintain that there are easily enough more-than-a-passing mentions in secondary sources for this to be a standalone article. Jprw (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see any reason why this game is significant. Plenty of games are physical and highly-contested, particularly semi-finals. To suggest a game is notable for its competitiveness would open the floodgates. Brad78 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not gonna vote on delete or keep, but I think the article has some serious problems with its structure and contents. The article should be about the matches, but there is not enough coverage about what happens in the match. There are no match details (lineups, referee, stadium, etc) which is a standard for a match article. Match summaries also need to be expanded, there are no mention on how the goals are made, except for Lee's "rare header". If the matches are highly physical, are there yellow and red cards in the game? Furthermore, the quotes from the players and media coverage immediately after the game should be in another section called "Aftermath". The aftermath section should also contains information about Liverpool winning the title that year. The quotes from the players and media coverage years after the game should be in another section called "Legacy". See Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989) for example, or 1956 FA Cup Final which is a featured article. In my opinion, this article put too much emphasize on players' quotes, while there are not enough details on the matches. — MT (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs expanding in terms of what actually happened in the matches (and will be able to do this) and that the players' quotes can probably be trimmed. I was also thinking of restructuring the article into different sections: matches, Souness / Movila incident, aftermath, legacy etc. In fact I think that this article has real further potential and would want to get it up to GA standard within a short space of time. Jprw (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear about your plan. Perhaps if you've done those before re-creating this article, those who are voting for delete would reconsider their votes, because although there is an improvement in sources/references between the deleted version and the current version, there is no significant improvement in the content, specifically about the match details. I'm sorry but I'm still gonna be neutral and not voting on either side. I think you've done a great work on this article, but I'm on the fence on its notability. — MT (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - the match remains as non-notable as before. GiantSnowman 10:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment As a matter of interest, before casting your vote, did you bother reading this discussion, the article itself, or assess any of the refs it contains? Jprw (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Jprw, you clearly do not/are unwilling to understand the notability guidelines. Your attempts to discredit and sway other editors are clearly failing so why don't you just let people vote and stop badgering them. Adam4267 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I am well within my rights as the creator of the article (and as someone who stands to lose many hours of work) to ask editors to justify their decisions. Even editors voting to delete are acknowledging that there are secondary sources referenced which contain more-than-a-passing mention to the event (although I note that Jmorrison230582 below seems to have failed to take this into account) which under WP notability criteria implies they should be voting to keep. Jprw (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "someone who stands to lose many hours of work" = WP:MERCY. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you addressed the main point. Jprw (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jmorrison has a point, the above is WP:MERCY, just because you put hours of work into something doesn't mean it should remain if it fails notablility guidelines, which it does because the sources do not have more than a trivial mention of the game as I detailed above, you can't base an article on sources that have a few paragraphs relating to the matches. That is trivial in the context of the source, I know you're referring to me when you say above, and I'm clarifying that all the secondary sources have trivial mentions of the match, not one source has the matches as their main focus, just by that alone the article should be deleted, never mind the fact the matches are no more notable than the carling cup matches played last night. NapHit (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

the matches are no more notable than the carling cup matches played last night if you honestly believe that, then you obviously understand absolutely nothing about football, and you undermine your authority to make useful comments / contributions here. You also contradict yourself about sources, having already admitted that at least "two to three" of the references contain more than a passing mention to the match, which is the fundamental WP criterion for establishing notability. That is the crux of the matter. The match is notable, a standalone article on it deserves to exist, and unless editors can prove otherwise then this AFD process should be halted. I will then be able to improve the article further – I am confident I can get it up to GA and perhaps FA. Jprw (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit rich requesting other users to be civil when you belittle me for comparing the matches to carling cup games, smacks of double standards. By WP standards the matches are no more notable than carling cup matches, as other users have said nothing notable occurred in these matches. I fail to see after all these comments about the references the nature of the matches etc how you can see otherwise, its ridiculous. NapHit (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but only someone with the barest knowledge of the game could possibly compare the semi-final of the Carling Cup with the semi-final of the European Cup in terms of importance. I think I was calling a spade a spade on that one. Your accusation "hypocrite" (from your edit summary) seems way off the mark if you are comparing this to my asking another editor to not adopt a patronising, dismissive tone (which he clearly was). Jprw (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Whether you could "get it up to GA and perhaps FA" is completely irrelevant. There is enough media coverage of practically every Liverpool game (or, indeed, any other professional sports team) to give a well-sourced article. The only problem is that there are 380 games in one Premier League season alone. Multiply that up by the number of professional leagues in all sports in all countries and the number of seasons have been played. That's why WP:SPORTSEVENT exists, because wikipedia is not the back page of your local newspaper. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be one gigantic non-sequitur. Have you not noticed that this is the semi-final of the European Cup? Jprw (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• You appear to be arguing that every European Cup semi-final is intrinsically notable. Why? Would you say that Hibernian v Stade Reims in 1956 was notable? It isn't a cup final, no medals or trophies are awarded. Liverpool progressed to another round of the same competition, that's all, the same as any other cup tie in any other competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• None of the independent sources given cover this tie in any depth, which means that it is not notable of itself. You are losing that argument again and are now pleading for mercy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• The comment about amount of work put in was an aside made in brackets, I am certainly not "pleading for mercy". The main point here is the sources and what constitutes notability -- on this you claim I am "losing the argument". Well, even NapHit, who voted to delete, has acknowledged that at least two or three contain a more-than-passing-mention to the match. Please focus on rebutting that point, and also addressing the issue re: autobiographies below. Then we might start to get somewhere instead of going round in circles. Jprw (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Not a final and not widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable (my emphasis). If anything, the other semi-final in that competition (where Roma bribed the referee) is closer to meeting that test. [1][2] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not much interested in sport and I came to this article by chance at AFD1 when I saw a substantial, well-cited article describing a small piece of social history. Personally, I don’t care what the match scores were but MT and others are right to want improved match details and I agree with MT’s other criticisms. Also, the Romanian view is seriously under-represented: there is only a single reference. None of these deficiencies come close to requiring deletion.

For notability I had thought, for example, Steve Hanrahan “Liverpool's 5-Star Heros” Trinity Mirror Sport Media. pp. 77-97 ISBN 1905266057 ; "Season 1983-84" EUROPEAN CUP HISTORY.COM. and David Randles "Mersey Hard Men: Liverpool FC legend Graeme Souness was the complete midfielder", Liverpool Echo (ref 6, 9 and 26 in NapHit’s detailed list) all were indicators of notability but, at least for the first, PeeJay warns at the article’s talk page that such references may not be what they seem.[3] So, I think everyone needs to make their own careful assessment. Only one of these references was there at AFD1 and I still think the WP:CSD#G4 was quite inappropriate. Many participating players’ autobiographies described the semi-final years later, sometimes extensively (see Dalglish). They personally found the tie memorable so readers may have come to think it is notable and expect to find more details on WP. However, I do accept that primary sources cannot be relied on to demonstrate wiki-notability. Next, it seems that national sports journalists are still recalling the event, even 25 years on. The mentions are brief but the significance may be substantial because the semi-final is being remembered both for itself and for a comparison with present day events.

The semi-final was played in a disgraceful manner but for me the event seems notable and the article demonstrates this. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information[4] and from this arises the concept of WP:Notability which is assessed by inviting editors to consider and normally keep to the guidelines given. If you regard WP:GNG as a firm set of hard-line rules some of my considerations above do not meet that standard. However, GNG is a guideline and in light of the references as a whole I think the article should be kept. It has not been included indiscriminately. It’s fine for people to argue “delete” on grounds of lack of inherent notability, but I’ll just comment that that is also against any hard-line rules interpretation of GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT.

Some of the criticism here has not been balanced. To take two examples, Ref 3 does indeed redirect to the Times front page, but the redirecting page tells you the reference is to be found behind a paywall (existence indicated here). OK, ref 10 scarcely mentions the match – it is there to verify a claim to a nine-match sequence, which it does.

If the experts decide this event is not notable, I still suggest selective merge. Targets could be any or all of [5], [6] and [7] which could receive parts of the material. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that a one sentence mention in an article that is totally unrelated to these two matches, warrants notability? That link you provided to ref 3 doesn't work by the way and it doesn't matter if it did because the article is not about these matches. The point I was making with the references is that Jprw was claiming that because there are more references then when the article was last here it should stay, but when those references hardly mention the match that is not the case. They do not establish notability, the fundamental question is what makes these two matches more notable than any other European cup semi-final that it warrants its own article? NapHit (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. I shall leave it the closing admin to decide what I and everyone else are saying. Thincat (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Recreation of a previously deleted article and nothing has changed since then. Not a final, no records were set, no lasting notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Another clear example of an editor taking a decision without first becoming acquainted with the facts. Jprw (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I suggest you refrain from accusing other editors for not reading the whole facts, you have to assume good faith. You can't possibly know whether they have or have not read the whole article and discussion, and I don't think you could force them to. Everyone is entitled to a vote and have to justify their vote by a reasonable reason. If you think there is a flaw in their reasoning, you have any right to question it, but not to accuse them for not reading the facts. Remember, AfD is not determined by majority vote (read WP:AFDEQ), but by consensus. The closing admin would value votes with strong arguments and could disregard any votes with no strong arguments. — MT (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable match. Autobiographies of players involved in the match are not considered independent reliable sources, as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG, and those sources which are indeed independent and reliable only feature routine coverage of the match. The article creator's uncivility in this deletion discussion towards other Wikipedians is disturbing at best. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 09:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment A shockingly biased and subjective assessment, both of what has been going on on this page in terms of civility, and how WP guidelines on notability should be interpreted. Jprw (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographies as RS

This FA, on the Scottish footballer John Wark, contains numerous references to his autobiography. It seems therefore that autobiographies can be used as RS. If we then take into account that the references related to players' autobiographies in the article allot a disproportionate amount of space to the matches, then they must surely serve to only further bolster the event’s notability. Jprw (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• 10/10 for missing the point. The factual accuracy of what happened in this game is not being disputed, which an autobiography can provide a reliable source for. It is the notability of the game that is being disputed. WP:SPORTSEVENT says that "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game". An autobiography of a player in that match is not an independent source. It also fails to demonstrate that the match is widely considered to be notable - some players from that team might think it was important, but that doesn't mean that anyone else does. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not deliberately doing anything. Please retract and try to adopt a more civil, less patronising tone. Thanks. Please also read what I wrote: it is the disproportionate amount of space that these players allot in their autobiographies, coupled with the nature of their descriptions, that creates additional notability. The three most high-profile Liverpool players of the club's golden age go out of their way to state at length that this was the most brutal and hostile event in their careers – not notable? Jprw (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I just see that you have removed the word "deliberately", but your tone remains patronising and unhelpful. Jprw (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• No. How much does Souness talk about his tackles on Siggi Jonsson or George McCluskey in his book(s)? [8][9] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jprw, you just don't seem to be getting what people are saying. To establish notability there needs to be independent sources which are specifically about the item in question, in this case obviously the match. While you have included independent sources (i.e Herald, Times) they only mention the match in passing. There are sources which focus specifcally on the match, but they are not independant (Liverweb, LFC TV). There are no sources which are both independent and about the match, which is why it should be deleted. You might not agree with it, but do you understand? Adam4267 (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you been studying at all what I have been saying? Or is this some kind of deliberate obfuscation exercise? Anyway, here we go again, one more time: the first guideline given here for establishing general notability reads as follows: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" [bold mine]. The article has enough secondary sources containing more-than-a-trivial mention of the event (even NapHit acknowledges this -- see above). Thus the criteria for having a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia are satisfied, and it seems that you are the one who does not understand. Jprw (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Kenny Dalglish's book My Liverpool Home (one of the sources you are citing) mentions this match in two pages in a book that is nearly 300 pages long. The vast majority of the detail is about the Souness tackle on the Romanian player. Then he says oh, by the way, we won and got to the final. You suggested above that the players give a "disporportionate amount of space" - that simply isn't true in Dalglish's case. He gives three times as much space to talk about the final itself. If it wasn't for the Souness tackle, he probably wouldn't mention the semi-final at all! So what it becomes it back to is basically this match is allegedly notable because Graeme Souness (a notoriously bad tackler) made a bad tackle. No sale. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you really should retract the suggestion that this is a "deliberate obfuscation exercise". That's just ridiculous. The majority don't think this game is notable under the conditions of WP:SPORTSEVENT, the relevant part of WP:N. You seem to have some sort of problem accepting that you might be wrong and are spraying around unfounded accusations of malfeasance or conspiracy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm utterly staggered at how editors can go on missing the central point, which can only support my suspicion that this is a "deliberate obfuscation exercise" (note that I, unlike you, am justified in using the word "deliberate"). Your latest entry above borders on the wild and hysterical – I wonder if your evident antipathy for Grahame Souness is clouding your judgement? By the way, I am going to remove your nasty and unfounded accusation from my talk page, and please don't visit there again unless you can be civil or have anything constructive to say. What a shame we have not been able to have a reasonable discussion that focuses on the central points and the crux of the matter. Jprw (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Closing admin please note: Editors with likely antipathy to Graeme Souness voting on this page

For the record, I would like the closing admin to note that the editors Jmorrison230582 and Adam4267 both appear to have a record of editing Scottish-football related articles, and specifically the articles of teams whose supporters traditionally have had an antipathy towards Graeme Souness, mainly because of his stint as manager of Rangers between 1986 and 1991. Since Souness features significantly in the article Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final (and is mostly painted in a positive light), it seems highly probable that such antipathy would compromise the above editors' ability to adopt a neutral position in passing judgment and voting on the article. The suspicion must also be raised that they have been operating as a cabal. Jprw (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That really is desperate and pathetic. Do I have any edit history of portraying Souness in a bad way? I have recently improved the article of Ibrox Stadium, the home ground of the team you are referring to (Rangers), and nominated it for GA status. By your "logic", I shouldn't be doing that. Also by your "logic", Adam4267 should be voting to keep this article because Kenny Dalglish was a key Liverpool player at the time, and he was also a key player and manager of the team Adam4267 supports (Celtic). Please produce evidence of us "operating as a cabal". Oh, what's that? There isn't any. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you incapable of communicating without resorting to incivility and unpleasantness? I have every right to raise a concern on this page that the discussion is being dominated by Scottish football supporters likely to have a negative position towards Souness, which could clearly make any debate biased and non-neutral. The cabal issue remains a deep suspicion. Jprw (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No addressing of the facts, just yet another ad hominem attack with no assumption of good faith whatsoever. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Coming from someone who posted this on my talk page, the mind boggles. Jprw (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you then willing to go on the record and confirm that you harbour no antipathy towards Graeme Souness? Jprw (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is all getting a bit ridiculous. You do realise that there is no "record" in a Wikipedia AfD discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is some evidence, the following edit summary from Jmorrison230582: "Graeme Souness making a dirty tackle was a common occurence" Jprw (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's a statement of fact, not antipathy (cf Siggi Jonsson and George McCluskey, or look at "Graeme Souness" +tackle on google.). And "for the record", no I don't have any antipathy toward him. I am (just) too young to have watched him play football (I think I started attending games the year after he retired). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jprw, not only have you probably broken the record for using most arguments to avoid in an Afd. But you have also clearly missed the most important conflict of interest. You clearly are attached to this article as you created it, there is also evidence to suggest you are a Liverpool fan which would further mean that you want this article to be kept. Do you not think it's more likely that an editor who created the article and also supports one of the teams will have a bigger conflict of interest than editors who are from the same country as some of the players involved? Adam4267 (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Arrant nonsense. I have stuck to trying to concentrate on why the article is notable (the subtle distinction that I have pointed out on perhaps half a dozen occasions has, alas, fallen on deaf ears, including your own). Other editors have repeatedly resorted to using shoddy and superficial arguments and obtuse reasoning and non-sequiturs, and have often lapsed into excursions into incivility. By the way, the link you posted contains several examples of "how not to vote", many of which bear an uncanny resemblance to the majority of delete votes here. I hope that the closing admin takes due note of this, as well as the reasoned and well-justified arguments of the two votes to keep. Jprw (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And you don't think that what you've said just there is in any way hypocritical? Adam4267 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This really has descended into a farce. Jprw why do you keep saying editors are avoiding the facts and crux of the matter when that has been addressed, when it is you that is avoiding the matter the fact that the references do not justify the existence of the article. This has been pointed out time and time again. Instead of acknowledging this you just lapse into ridiculous arguments about incivility and people not liking Graeme Souness and accusing authors of having no knowledge of football (which I find disgraceful by the way, and smacks of hypocrisy as you sit on your high horse and accuse anyone who has the temerity to question your views as being uncivil). To simplify there is no cabal, no bias against Grameme Souness, no conspiracy, the article is simply not notable by WP guidelines (btw you can't include a guide line you made up as justification).

The usual garbled incoherence from NapHit, and as for accusing authors of having no knowledge of football (which I find disgraceful by the way) – I'm sorry that you find it disgraceful that I wish to point out that someone who clearly doesn't understand the difference beetween the Carling Cup and the European Cup may be lacking in knowledge about the game. I thought it was a legitimate point to make: you have severely undermined your authority to make useful comments / contributions here – why should we trust anything that you say? Jprw (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Not good enough, please give valid reasons – see here, and please pay particular attention to the following: AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion. Thanks. Jprw (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a totally ridiculous accusation by Jprw. This is clearly not the case and by doing this he is ignoring the facts at hand and attacking other users. This is not appropriate for an AFD.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am merely alerting the closing admin to the fact that this may be an issue. Bringing up potential concerns over whether the neutrality of a discussion have been compromised seems valid. Jprw (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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.