Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnley 0–1 Lincoln City (2017)


 * 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. Close to a 'no consensus' closure but observations by and  lean this towards a 'keep'. (non-admin closure)  J 947  18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Burnley 0–1 Lincoln City (2017)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article on a FA Cup match which saw Lincoln City become the first non-league team to advance to the quarterfinals of the FA Cup in over 100 years. This is a significant accomplishment for the team, but does not mean the game itself meets WP:SPORTSEVENT. The current article is mostly a list of the previous matches leading to the event, all sourced to BBC match reports. I do not see anything at the moment that merits a standalone article versus integrating this content into other articles such as Lincoln City F.C. and 2016-17 FA Cup.

I initially declined speedy deletion and redirected the article to a section of Lincoln City F.C. Since then two editors (who I have notified of this AfD listing) have gone back and forth between restoring the article and re-redirecting it. I bring the article here to gain consensus. I personally favor Redirect to a section of Lincoln City F.C. –Grondemar 15:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect - The lasting notability of this game has not yet been established. – PeeJay 19:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Precedence has been set that any time a non-league team knocks out a PL team in the FA Cup, the match is notable. Norwich City 0–1 Luton Town (2013) and Hereford United 2–1 Newcastle United as examples. Furthermore, there is sufficient sourcing to fulfill GNG and actually has received coverage beyond the routine coverage to fulfill SPORTSEVENT.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Those articles set no precedent whatsoever. Their notability was established for their individual cases, and their cases only. And has it really received sufficient independent coverage? There may be news reports about this match, but no more than any other match this season. What we're looking for is evidence that this match will be remembered as notable for years to come, not just as a flash in the pan for 2017. – PeeJay 23:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Beyond the fact that it has been covered internationally in sources in the article from New Zealand, India and the Republic of Ireland? Which pursuant to SPORTSEVENT clearly states "outside routine coverage of each game", clearly foreign sources aren't going to be interested in Millwall-Leicester for example but when a non-league team makes history and knocks out a PL team in the process then they take notice and cover it which they wouldn't have otherwise done.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of lasting notability. To refer to the two examples given by The C of E above, Hereford v Newcastle clearly has lasting notability because it is still referred to as the cup shock par excellence, along with maybe Sutton v Coventry in the late 1980s. Norwich v Luton, on the other hand, was kind of a big deal at the time but I doubt anybody has talked about it since the immediate aftermath. The reason for this is that the FA Cup simply isn't as important a tournament as it once was. Up until the late 1980s, it was arguably more prestigious than the league championship because it meant big crowds, playing at Wembley and having games televised, all of which were unusual for even the bigger clubs. Nowadays it is more of an irritant to the Premier League clubs, who hardly ever play their full strength team in a domestic cup match. Therefore the bar for "notable FA Cup match" is a lot higher nowadays, I think. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The significant international coverage it received is evidence it meets WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above Keep votes. Article is notable and needs improving, not deleting. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a suitable section of Lincoln City F.C., or to a season article, if and when anyone writes one. There's been enough coverage of Lincoln's cup run as a whole to take it above the routine, meaning a season article would be notable (which at the fifth tier of English football, it normally wouldn't be). And that'd be the ideal place to cover the latest match. It's way too soon to tell whether this match will have significant enduring notability. The Hereford and Sutton matches have, I don't think the Luton one does. The C of E is mistaken that foreign sources aren't going to be interested in Millwall v Leicester: the New Zealand site that ran the Reuters report cited in the article also carried a Reuters report of pretty much the same size and (lack of) depth on the Millwall-Leicester match. The media both domestic and foreign are bound to be interested news-wise in a non-league team beating a Premier League team and thereby reaching the quarter-final for the first time in modern times, but that's how news reporting works. WP:SPORTSEVENT requires out-of-the-ordinary coverage, as the examples clearly illustrate: this match hasn't had it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is out of the ordinary. Would a country half way around the world cover it had the result been reversed? Unlikely. The fact they have done it to cover one match in a minority sport (which it is in NZ at least, where rugby is king) shows there is more than ordinary coverage going on here. And the Millwall one is more about hooliganism than the match.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Would a country half way around the world cover it had the result been reversed?" Arsenal v Sutton, and not a pie in sight. I'm surprised how unaware you seem to be of the level of coverage of English football in the English-speaking world: publishing a syndicated match report really isn't extraordinary. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per reasons above. The fact that the match was in the fifth round (and not the usual third or fourth) makes this game, in my opinion, more significant - producing the first non-League quarter-finalist in more than 100 years. &rArr; Chris0282 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's too early to see if there is any lasting lasting notability per WP:EVENT, same with Bradford City beating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge (which, like this game, is one of the "biggest FA Cup shocks"). GiantSnowman 09:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Chris0282 Spiderone  12:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above keep votes. Made quite a splash here in Australia. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (or possibly merge into another article) -- article in BBC with other non-trivial RS makes me think it notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2017 (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.