Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic 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. There is clearly a consensus for deletion here, the Keep rationales do not make it clear why this game is particularly notable. "The match has been released on DVD" - so have thousands of others. "It set records" - in that case, as pointed out, we have an article for that (incidentally, one of the records - most goals scored by a team in a PL game - doesn't appear there). I hope this is a clear enough rationale. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic F.C.[edit]

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

An article about a game with nothing more than a rather unusual result. The fact it equalled (not beated) a previous record for the number of scored goals does not make the game notable on its own, and is nothing more worth of a mention in the Premier League article, as well as the article about the Premier League season when it happened. See also Wikipedia: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) 00:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We definitely need to make sure that random football matches don't gain an article, but this was big news at the time, and the match has even been released on DVD. The article needs expansion, though. Esteffect (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously the doomed deletion of the two articles, one regarding the Tottenham 3-4 Manchester City FA Cup have set the precedent for separate match pages, therefore I see it right and fair that this match page is removed too. To add to Esteffect's comment, the Tottenham 3-4 Manchester City was actually released on DVD too, but this page is doomed for deletion too, so likewise for this page (Stevo1000 Talk 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I ever seen WP:OTHERSTUFFMIGHTGETDELETED put forth as a valid deletion reason before. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A big score does not make a match notable, nor does a DVD release. Apart from the score, which in itself was not a Premier League record breaker, it's just another league game. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that just because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that not anything must have an article, but bear in mind that we currently have articles on single American football plays (one part of a match) (for example Music City Miracle, Immaculate Reception and The Miracle at Michigan). As it stands, those plays are deemed notable even if the match they played in aren't.—User:MDCollins (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Immaculate Reception at least demonstrates that the play has received ongoing coverage beyond contemporary news accounts, so notability is shown there. The article in question here does not do likewise. There are referencing problems with Music City Miracle (which I find astonishing), but that isn't relevant here anyway and that issue can be addressed in the appropriate place. AJ Cham 03:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate information, failing WP:N. Ignore "otherstuffexists" argument.Edison (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—If this game is notable because of a record, it can be summarized in Football records in England.—RJH (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment (lean towards keep)~~Keep Some individual matches are notable. This match has received significant nontrivial coverage from international sources. If the sharing a record is considered notable in the sources then it might be notable on Wikipedia. Otherstuff essays do not forbid us from pointing to other articles when there is good reason and potential precedent. The article in question currently link to the two separate matches it shares records with. Those might need to be deleted as well of course, but some poking around in books and ongoing news coverage (as in years later, let me know if links are needed) about the sport discusses them. It is safe to assume that this will receive the same treatment. Any biography of Defoe will discuss the game. Any reviews of this season will discuss the match. Some media discussing records might touch on it. Records are typically notable in my opinion. And there are two of them in one match. Records are made to be broken but notability is not temporary.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By that token, every notable club's record victory is notable, as it will be discussed in any book about that club, or any player who played in that game. That makes a lot of articles that could be created. Hundreds, in fact. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I can't see Gillingham F.C. 12-1 Gloucester City F.C. surviving an AfD..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I. Just like I can't see Preston North End F.C. 26-0 Hyde F.C. or Preston North End 10-0 Stoke City F.C. (although I think it was just "Stoke F.C." at the time) surviving an AfD. (Even though I think the first one is the highest ever score in an FA Cup game.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Although given half a chance, I'll be straight in with Leyton Orient F.C. 9-2 Chester F.C.. Double figures are so vulgar ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are the other two articles about matches that share records with this one going up for deletion as well?Newcastle United F.C. 8–0 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. and Newcastle United F.C. 8–0 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are the same, but it should go for deletion as well. That info could easily be merged to the Newcastle and Shearer articles, as it is his achievement, not the game, which is notable. The rest of the article is just team line-ups, which are neither here nor there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. is the other. If all three are viewed as good candidates for deletion then it makes more sense.Cptnono (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually support the inclusion of the highest scoring FA Cup match if it has had significant coverage. Try it out.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may have been a high score, but that doesn't make the game notable (and it's certainly not a record: Man United beat Ipswich 9-0 in 1995, whilst Wigan scored in this game). Nor does the fact that Defoe got five goals (again, not a record - Andy Cole and Alan Shearer had already done it). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what is the cut-off for "big goal" games being notable? Ten goals? Nine goals? Eight? Based on England's performance at the World Cup, if they score two against Hungary on Wednesday it'll be a notable performance! Giant Snowman 17:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game, a big score does not make it notable. --Carioca (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carioca and because I'm a Wigan fan )-: Stifle (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to make the point that (albeit in the majority of cases passively) I have encountered most of the editors I have named below. While I have had disagreements with the nominator on AfD matters in the past, I otherwise have a lot of respect for the work that he and everyone else here has done for the project. However, I have not seen a single good reason for deletion. First up, Edison's argument that this is indiscrimiate is a fallacy, as we are talking about a (joint) record, not a willy-nilly high number that catches a few eyes and we've therefore written about. Secondly, this match equalled the record for the most goals scored by a team and an individual. It is entirely inconsistent to argue that setting a record is notable but matching the achievement while it is still a record is not, as Angelo and DitzyNizzy appear to have done; it is either one or the other. The delete arguments on the grounds that "a score" is not notable (including GiantSnowman, Bretonbanquet Carioca and Stifle) have only given half the story. "A score" is not notable, I fully accept that. But a double record-equalling match in one of the most-watched sports leagues (both in person and on TV) probably is notable. It just so happens that "a score" is one of those two records. Also possibly relevant to the discussion is the fact that Stevo is making a point-y vote because articles he has named, likes, and is trying to keep seem unlikely to survive. I look forward with interest to the outcome of this AfD. Provided that the above arguments are the only things people have, the closure of this AfD will give an indication as to whether admins understand that AfD is supposed to be based upon the strength of arguments. --W F C-- 02:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable game, and set records. Whilst most sources for it appear to be match reports immediately after the event, they indicate the importance of the game, and articles such as this should not be deleted just because they are relatively recent. Eldumpo (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and failing general notability for events. End of the day it was just another football match - and not a particularly good one at that. Worth a mention in a relevant season article, but not particularly notable in and of itself. Even if you accept the equalling record aspect of notability, it only equalled the record for the English Premier League, not the record for any game anywhere. Plenty of other scores higher. Fails . When this record gets beaten it is no longer a record and therefore becomes non-notable - so much for notability being not temporary. Should appear in Football records in England or 2009–10 Premier League, but undue weight to have as stand alone article. Yes it got the odd other mention during the season, and no doubt it will get dragged out again this season when Spurs come up against Wigan, but that is just general sports journalism which is not notability per WP:NTEMP--ClubOranje^T 10:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "When this record gets beaten it is no longer a record and therefore becomes non-notable - so much for notability being not temporary." The clearest possible indiciation that this user has absolutely no idea what "notability is not temporary" means. --WFC-- 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite possibly I am not up to date with all the latest policies and guidelines - back when I started there was still a no personal attacks policy where we were supposed to comment on content, not on the contributor. At one time, 3-0 was a record for the premier league. Later it was 4-0. Later still it was 5-3. I remember a time when 7-1 was the premier league record. I do not see individual pages for these records. At one time each was mentioned on the appropriate statistics and records page, where it was subsequently updated with the latest quasi record... and I say quasi-record because that is all it is - a local record in a local league that has only been about for less than 20 years. This information belongs on the appropriate statistics and records page and/or possibly within a season article, not in it's own temporary page--ClubOranje^T 09:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I have done is remove the above on the grounds that I did not make a personal attack. If the allegation is not retracted or appropriately refactored, I will take the matter as far as is necessary. --W F C-- 00:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see what particularly distinguishes this game from others given that it didn't set a new record. FWIW, Wigan also lost 8–0 to Chelsea on the final day of the same season, which perhaps underlines the point that this game wasn't that exceptional. Close but no cigar. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, this !voter is explicitly stating that setting a record is notable, whilst equalling it is not, contrary to WP:NTEMP. --W F C-- 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the outcome, I'd be grateful if the closing admin could provide a proper closing rationale, so that participants can be sure that the AfD was closed as an evaluation of the discussion, rather than as a vote. Even though any rationale should not be seen as a precident, a rationale along the lines of the one here would be extremely helpful to WP:FOOTY in our medium-term goal of working out if/how match notability should be determined. Regards, --W F C-- 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually some decent reasoning for both if you remove the !votes that were simply based on it being a high score. I still think the reasoning to keep is better backed by both precedent and the guidelines. I too would be curious about any closure to delete since that would set some stuff in motion for a change in the notability standards over at the project.Cptnono (talk) 03:45, 18 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.