Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FA Cup giant-killings


 * 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. Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify which criteria is use for this article. It contains point of views which are potentially WP:OR and non-neutral. So it is better to not write about subject. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

List of FA Cup giant-killings

 * Previous AFD


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The criteria used to describe what a giant-killing constitutes is inherently original research and, per a recent discussion at WP:FOOTBALL there's quite a strong consensus for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - defining giant killin for the purposes of the list is OR. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite the entertainment value, it is clearly original research and therefore doesn't belong in this encyclopedia as written.  To be kept, we'd need independent references that list the same set of matches, the same inclusion criteria, the same nomenclature ("giant-killings"), etc.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Delete. Since no-one can define giant-killing in any meaningful, concise manner, the list quickly becomes WP:OR. The criteria listed in the article at the moment are one author's opinion of what comprises giant-killing, but the term is used in the press whenever any lower division team beats a higher division one (and that includes upsets among different levels of non-league teams as well). If you include all those, the list becomes unusably large (at my best guess would be nearly 100 games a season!) The concept is therefore notable, but I can't define it in a way that would give us a usable article. - fchd (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that hits the nail on the head - the concept is notable but the definition is inherently subjective until Collins/Webster/etc define "giant-killer" within this context. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just looked in my Collins English Dictionary and the entry for "giant killer" is "n. a person, sports team, etc., that defeats an apparently superior opponent". - fchd (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great! So how can we now make "apparently" NPOV?!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By providing reliable sources for the entries. If a result has multiple references describing it as a giant killing it is, otherwise it does not go on the list. It is not individual editors place to define criteria but the world at large. Nuttah (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Provide reliable sources for each entry.  The criteria are clearly defined in the lead.  They're not cited.  Whose criteria are they?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those criteria in the lead are POV. The only should be that there are reliable sources describing the result as a giant killing. Nuttah (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And then the article title should be List of FA Cup results described as giant-killings. Inherently there's no neutral definition of "giant-killing" so there's work to be done!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As I've commented at the football WikiProject talk page, this is irretrievably OR. Some material could make up a List of FA Cup defeats of league clubs by non-league (or perhaps better worded) but as TRM says, it'd be very hard to devise NPOV NOR wording for this. Shame, but there you go. --Dweller (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria were devised by me and user:Peanut4 to keep the list to a managable size. Furthermore it prevents it being regularly hijacked by supporters of particular teams. I fully accept that those are arbitrary criteria, which I believe to make the best of a bad job. But thats the point - its just my opinion. So it's obvious to me from long discussions on this that the list is never going to meet WP:VERIFY as no two people can agree on what makes a giant killing. Valenciano (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Compact OED gives a person or team that defeats a seemingly much more powerful opponent. Pity, but I don't see how to convert that into neutral non-OR inclusion criteria. Struway2 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm going to buck the trend and stick my neck out. The list is notable and therefore simple keep. I concede it may well be WP:OR but giant killing does have a dictionary defition. To keep the list manageable, the list needs a criteria, which have been set. As per the previous AfD, it is possible to take WP:OR too far, see the featured list - List of important operas. I also feel that using individual sources woulnd't work, because you then leave it down to an individual journalist. If the Harrogate Advertiser called Harrogate Railway's victory over Harrogate Town a giant-killing, then we would be forced to include it. I'm open to suggestions for verifying the criteria and then putting in any upsets which match those criteria, whether sourced or not, as long as they're fact. If that's not possible, then so be it, but I feel this list is notable enough and want to make it work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Much as I hate to argue with you Peanut4 but what would stop me creating "List of FA Cup giant-killings 2" (or similar) with my own criteria like "any team beaten by any other team (say) three tiers below them"? As per discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, Chasetown beat Port Vale which is a five division difference.  That's about as giant killing it gets.  Your giant is only as big as you are short.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have to admit I do agree with most of what you say (if not all). I'm just trying my hardest to keep a list which others have even admitted is notable enough. Though I did vote delete last time round!! However, I'm struggling to find a decent enough definition for giant-killing, other than David v Goliath and that even the BBC call some non-league team beating a bad Lge Two team is giant-killing, and even games in the Football League Trophy can be giant-killing! I will keep trying. Peanut4 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course games in the FLT can be giant-killing, so can they in the FA Trophy, FA Vase, any competition that brings together teams from different levels. - fchd (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was only being sarcastic about a derided competition which only has two division's worth of clubs. Peanut4 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very reluctant delete. I think the only way around this would be to set up some form of arbitrary criterion (e.g., "List of FA Cup wins by teams over opponents two or more flights higher in the English league system"), which is getting to be pretty wordy and, as I said, arbitrary. Given that my old home town has a proud record of such wins (and has just won through to the fourth round against higher placed opposition), I'm reluctant, but sadly in its present form the article probably has to go. Grutness...wha?  00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Isn't this the same as what we call an "upset" in American sports? Something like the Dolphins beating the Patriots?  There's at least one source, a page that documents "shocks", and I imagine that this is recorded in printed sources as well.  People have been fascinated by an unexpected defeat by a lesser opponent since the day that David met Goliath.  Mandsford (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment isn't "arbitrary criterion" equivalent to "original research" really? Why is one arbitrary criterion more or less relevant than another?  The issue here isn't whether or not the list contains shock results, that's a given, the issue is that the title of the article and the author's decision on what constitutes a "giant-killing". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't buy the original research argument, as lists of "giant-killing" are regularly published in the Sky Sports and News of the World football annuals. The article just needs proper sourcing. Catchpole (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If we reproduced those lists, though, wouldn't that be copyvio....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so please define what a "giant-killing" constitutes precisely. Do you agree the current criteria are what make a giant killing?  And do Sky and the News of the World have the same criteria as this article or even each other?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't own any Sky books so can't speak for them. I own quite a lot of NotW books but I can't check them right now as they're at home, but as I recall they just have a section headed something like "famous shock results" and don't set out any specific criteria..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And, while we're at it, why shouldn't Chasetowns win over Port Vale be considered a giant killing? According to the current criteria, because Port Vale aren't in the top two divisions, it can't be listed. There's a five-division discrepancy between the two teams. That's about as "giant-killing" as it gets. But it's not going to make the list. Unless we add/modify the criteria. Which is precisely the problem with the list in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * To be honest I don't think it's possible to define giant-killing. Like I said above, the BBC cast giant-killing on even non-league teams beating other non-league teams and also Bury beating Leeds in the Football League Trophy. Yet one FA Cup story I found for Third Round day was headlined "FA Cup reaches giant-killing stage" with the implied suggestion that only teams from the top two divisions can be giant-killed. As much as I want to keep this, I reckon it's only a delete (because of WP:OR reasons and problems with sourcing the definition) or create a new entry, such as List of non-league teams beating league teams in the FA Cup or List of top tier sides beaten by lower league opposition in the FA Cup - both unwieldy titles. Peanut4 (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOR, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." All that needs to be done is come up with an set of criteria and apply it based on the sources available and possibly move the article to a more appropriate name. Catchpole (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "All that needs to be done is come up with an set of criteria..." thats that first big problem. "...the sources available ..." that's the second problem with this list - there are no reliable sources.  In the current state the article should be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of British Football (ed. Cox, Russell, Vamplew, 2002 ISBN 0714682306) has a six page section on 'Giant killers', complete with sources and match descriptions. Catchpole (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And reprinting it here would be a copyvio. Do they mention their criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can read it starting here...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very nice! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the main sources appears to be a book written by Geoff Tibballs entitled "FA Cup Giant Killers", I've added this to the article as a good source. Catchpole (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But that source hasn't been used in the selection of matches here has it? Does it have the same criteria which have been arbitrarily selected here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I have the 1996 NOTW annual about me, which has a giant-killing list. It doesn't say, and I can't tell at quick glance without knowing what divisions the clubs were in at the time, what criteria they adopt. It names about 75 results in the ten years up to 1996, about 30 in the previous ten years, and about another 30 in the whole preceding history of the FA Cup. Which to me looks pretty recentist, unless shock results only started happening in the last 30 years. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

←There is precedent for this at Polymath, where every Tom, Dick and Harry's favourite genius used to be inserted on the basis that they once did a chemistry experiment or published a book on sailor's knots or whatever. Now only people cited in RS as a polymath remain listed. However, in this case, it brings its own problems. Sports journalists tend to get a bit excitable. If (say) Fulham of the English Premier League, defeated Man Utd in an FA Cup game, I wouldn't be surprised to find an RS that described it as a "giant-killing" and I would expect to see it reported as an "upset", yet it would not be a notable match and in encyclopedic terms shouldn't be included. Yet how could we exclude it without contravening NPOV? I just think this is unrescuable. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Keep and move to List of FA Cup upsets; current title is laughably POV. --Merovingian (T, C) 10:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not even sure about "upsets" - in any match there could be extenuating circumstances where upsets may be expected (if you know what I mean). I think that's still too POV.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just a thought. I'd also support Peanut4's suggestion above about specifying a criterion or two.  But if we give examples at upset, what's to say there can't be a list of them?  --Merovingian (T, C) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, it's much better than the current title with these dubious criteria. I believe in its current state the list is untenable, the only reference is poor, hardly a reliable source.  I'd look for a list with each match having a citation whereby someone reliable (BBC, Sky, Times, Telegraph) etc have actually described the match as an upset (or similar). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, too. AFAIK, if a sporting event is enough of an upset, somebody in the media will say it and we can reference it.  --Merovingian (T, C) 10:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the word upset, and sourcing it to the above sources, would make the list very recentist, and also open the list to being potentially large and unmanageable, though I do congratulate the progress being made. My worry would be that such results as Wimbledon-Liverpool 1988 would be classed as an upset, yet they played each other in the league that season and such a win wouldn't create such interest. Peanut4 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Upset' is far worse than Giant Killing as its even more in the eye of the beholder. Wins by clubs near the bottom of the Premier against the big four are usually described as upsets. With over 700 ties taking place each season that means at least 50 games each season. For the list to have any value it needs to avoid recentism and include only the most notable results. This was the whole point of the current criteria. Its obvious that there is no agreement on the criteria so this is a clear delete for me I'm afraid. Valenciano (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is an oustanding example of a deletion debate. Kudos to everyone involved. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * People need to keep Wikipedia policies in mind here.


 * First WP:Verify says that results should be backed against reliable sources. I'm sure we could do that with results currently in the list. But theres also WP:Notability which says: "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability" in other words just because journalist X considers a result an upset today doesn't mean it will be remembered five years from now. So those two need to be balanced against each other.


 * Second WP:NoOriginalResearch. Thatš the problem with the list regardless of how we tinker with it. If we're not going to have a pointless indiscriminate list of 5000 odd results we need criteria. But to cover results which always crop up on the lists those criteria will always be arbitrary e.g. "a three division gap over top flight clubs or a two division gap if they finished in the top six or won the cup the previous season; or a four division gap for lower level clubs; or a one division gap for the final"


 * Thirdly WP:I like it. Yes it's an interesting list but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Valenciano (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good summing up. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: WP:Verify. I totally agree, which is why I would rather see the criteria be sourced rather than individual results. That way it avoids one journalist at either the BBC, or a local newspaper, but at any RS, getting carried away with one win. If such verification isn't possible, then the only possible result of this titled entry is delete.
 * Re: WP:I like it. I think this list suits WP:LIST. It is a structured chronological list, partly as an off shoot of the FA Cup entry, and would be of the giant-killing entry currently on the Requests list. Peanut4 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that who decides which criteria is correct? There's no right answer.  There wasn't much response to the question "why Chasetown beating Port Vale (five divisions above them) shouldn't go in this list".  The reason why it all went quiet was because I suspect we all know the answer and it's that the criteria will always be subjective, therefore POV, therefore unsuitable for an article like this.  192.93.164.23 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I've given reasons why Chasetown shouldn't be included on umpteen occasions. First - recentism. An identical result when Bedlington beat Colchester who were five levels higher in 1998-9 is largely forgotten. Secondly and most crucially Chasetown is already mentioned in the appropriate section History of the FA Cup and I truly don't believe that a second round win over Port Vale is so notable that it needs to be mentioned twice. Thirdly it comes down to how we define giant killing and I view it to be beating a giant as if we're to include all wins by non-league clubs over level three clubs, the list becomes a bit pointless. Is my POV any more worthy than your POV? I readily accept that it isn't and given the multiple disagreements in sources, thatš why its gotta go. Valenciano (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Chasetown beating Port Vale to me isn't a giant-killing (though I agree it's a relative giant-killing to Port Vale). Chasetown beating Port Vale is a cup upset, and a very substantial one at that. Subtlely changing the article title, as suggested above, changes the goalposts, pardon the pun, a hell of a lot. Peanut4 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

←Bizarre. A part-time amateur team beating a professional league club founded in 1876, five divisions above them isn't a giant killing act? Well that's it (all over again) - a subjective choice. Relativity, subjectivity, arbitrary criteria, that's what makes this whole thing wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it all depends on how you define the word 'Giant'. I don't know about you but when people ask me for a giant of English football, Vale aren;t the first club to spring to mind. If they'd been founded in 876 it wouldn't change that one iota. As I say Chasetown are already mentioned in the relative section, why should we duplicate a mention of a win over third level Port Vale but not mention arguably more notable results? The simple question Rambling man, is do you remember the equivalent result in 1999 when Bedlington beat Colchester? If the answer is no, then I rest my case. If the answer is yes, then weŗe still broadly in agreement about the subjectivity of the article. Valenciano (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, and I've said it before, the term "giant" in this context is relative. So Chasetown's giant (Port Vale) is Liverpool's minnow.  Everything is relative, needs context and will always be dependent on someone's definition.  Thus never NPOV, thus delete.  BTW I'm the wrong person to ask about Col U since I'm an ITFC/Col U fan (if you can have such a thing) so yes I do!  And that's yet another problem.  All lists will be infiltrated by the "Oh, but what about X F.C. who once beat Y Rovers in the 2nd round in 1955?"  This list can never be resolved satisfactorily. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * I totally agree with you Valenciano, which is why I say it's a substantial upset. I just don't count Port Vale as a giant. But I also agree with TRM's synopsis. Our difference of opinions unfortunately, and I say unfortunately because I see this as a notable list, show how POV the whole list will always be under its current title. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Peanut you and I have probably spent more time than anyone trying to keep these lists workable and I just think weŗe flogging a dead horse here. Rambling man, as a colchester fan you are forgiven :) Youre totally right anyway. The lists have been dogged from the word go by 'whataboutery.' Last season it was league one Forest beating Premiership Charlton. A straw poll from a predictions league I'm on had 13 people going for a Forest win, 12 for a Charlton win and four for a draw. Not even an upset nevermind a giant killing. No matter who we quote from, be it BBC, Sky, News of the World, theyļl never agree. As youļl agree, my POV and Original Research is no better than yours. Valenciano (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we can't use BBC, Sky or NOTW as full reliable sources because none existed when the FA Cup started so the list will never be complete using those. Peanut4 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The cup has also been around longer than the league (and certainly longer than a series of organised lower flights of it), so the early matches are always going to be a problem from that point of view. But there are histories of the FA Cup published out there - if one of them says that, say Cambridge University beating Royal Engineers 1-0 in the 1877 Quarter Finals was a major upset (which it was - RE had won the clash of these two sides 5-0 two seasons earlier, and had been in three of the first four finals), then if that source is a reputable souce it should be good enough. This strikes me as being a similar problem to that met with by Place names considered unusual - a page which was thoroughly and sadly gutted after AFD. Grutness...wha?  23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete - as it seems sentiment is against it, and I was the one who originally split it from FA Cup. That said, giant-killings are an important part of the FA Cup and it should be mentioned somewhere, perhaps not in list format though. Qwghlm (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and POV on "giant-killing". Changing the title to FA Cup Upsets would still be OR and POV.  Define an upset?  Two non-league clubs 80+ places apart in the pyramid getting a 1-1 draw would be an upset. Lugnuts (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per fchd. D.M.N. (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2008 (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.