Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcorconazo (2009–10 Copa del Rey Round of 32)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Alcorconazo (2009–10 Copa del Rey Round of 32)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedurally completing an AfD nomination for an IP that completed steps 1 and 3. I'm guessing that the nomination rationale is that this is a non-notable individual football game. I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep About 58,100 results for Alcorconazo on google, 310 on news.google.com - 48,000 for alcorcon, images of t-shirts etc. A move, and cleanup, to Alcorconazo would be better, but this is notable. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Giant-killings like this happen all the time in the Copa del Rey. – PeeJay 09:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The Copa del Rey isn't short of results like this, like all cup competitions - so the result itself is not notable. It needs a major clean-up at the very least. This is another example of the common problem of what makes a single football match notable. Proper guidelines are needed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, this got 13 mentions in the last month in reliable sources, by using Alcorconazo as search word which is not adopted by the whole Spanish media. How many mentions did Manchester 9-0 Ipswich Town get last month? One. That's it. One mention on Goal.com. What's the difference? This match gets news coverage in the Spanish and not the English press. The GNG does not differentiate between Premier League and Copa del Rey, although some editors might do. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When a subject is known by a specific, one-word name, it's not surprising that you will get more search results than for "Manchester United 9-0 Ipswich Town". The English media do not have the same habit of nicknaming individual matches like the Spanish and Latin American media do. Furthermore, the "Alcorconazo" only happened a few months ago, whereas this match took place more than 15 years ago, which makes it unsurprising that it gets fewer Google hits. – PeeJay 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Manchester 9-0 Ipswich were without quotes. You have to sort through the false positives. And it's 8 months ago the second leg was played. Receiving 13 mentions in reliable sources in the past months is a sign of enduring notability. Reg. naming, Battle of Old Trafford? Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to meet WP:GNG Eldumpo (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - has received enough media attention to be notable; if kept, the article definitely needs renaming to match current conventions. GiantSnowman 16:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't need relisting, the GNG is quite clear, WP:PERSISTENCE: "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.", I have established that above, the deletion votes offer no counter-argument but merely say that this is non-notable because it was in a Cup tournament, well that is not how the GNG works. Sandman888 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Persistent coverage means that the match appears to meet the general notability guidelines. Big  Dom  07:09, 31 August 2010 (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.