Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "No sources provided to indicate long-term notability of this game." PROD was removed with an attempt to address this issue, but still with no sources. In fact, the only external source is a link to The Guardian's statistical record of the game. – PeeJay 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Mr. Deletion and Mr. Sabotage of other people's work, this is not an article worthy of deletion. When one of biggest intra-city derbies in English football end with seven goals scored, the last on six minutes stoppage time in the wake of the most complicated transfer of a player between the rivals, the you say it's worthy of a deletion. Holy mama.Roslagen (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That, of course, is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you need to provide sources to prove the game's noteworthiness in the media. Just because we think a game is notable doesn't mean it is. – PeeJay 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of being so determined to move it away, how about you doing us a favour and help out with it? If so I may change my mind on you from being a discontributor to an actual pro-contributor...Roslagen (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would if I was convinced by the game's long-term notability. No records were set and it wasn't really an unforgettable match on the whole. As things stand, those are WP:FOOTY's inclusion standards for individual matches, and until those change, this game doesn't meet them. – PeeJay 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No records were set in Battle of the Buffet or Battle of Old Trafford either, and I guess some people could forget about those too. Goal-spreading top matches or derbies will not be forgotten, and have long-term notability. Of course English football fans old enough to remember will have a huge likelihood to remember that Owen struck the winner in the 96th minute in the derby. Of course it is. There are no concerns whatsoever about that from my side. Only a brainwashed Wikimaniac would even consider the thought of doing that. Roslagen (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing about the Battle of the Buffet and the Battle of Old Trafford was that they both made front-page news, rather than back-page. This game made little more than back-page news as there was very little fallout from it. – PeeJay 19:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Honest, front-page views in the sporting pages goes for any event. Now I challenge you on the sources, can you prove thsi game was not on the first page of any significant newspaper in England? I guess it certainly was. Until you've proven such a thing, this article is innocent until proven guilty. Roslagen (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. The burden of proof is on you to provide sources to prove this game's notability. And the question isn't whether this game was on the front page, but whether anything happened in it that extended beyond sporting matters. – PeeJay 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per WP:ROUTINE, "routine events such as sports matches... may be better covered as part of another article, if at all". Although 4-3 scorelines are uncommon, unlike Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. there was not any kind of record set and I don't believe it meets WP:GNG criteria. If the notability relates to the transfer of Carlos Tevez then some of the content could be incorporated into the relevant section of his article (if it hasn't been done so already). Deserter 1  19:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing particularly special - derby matches are often full of goals/tension. Number   5  7  19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article doesn't indicate anything particularly noteworthy.  On the other hand, it may be acceptable to create a new article on Manchester intra-city football rivalry, and include a summary of all the games between these two teams.  --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have Manchester derby. – PeeJay 19:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's the best solution then. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard a European announcer talk about a "darby" once, and I had no idea what he was talking about. Now I know ;-)  --Noleander (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No enduring notability. A high-scoring derby match doesn't justify a stand-alone article. If it did there would be thousands of them. Argyle 4 Life  talk  19:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ROUTINE. No evidence of longstanding notability for this game. Parts of it could be salvaged for the Manchester derby article. Valenciano (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge any important info to the derby article. There's no sign of any outstanding notability for this particular match, unless it can be found. As Argyle says, at this rate we could have hundreds and hundreds of these articles. I'm also really bored with people saying that their articles are notable until somebody else proves that they're not. Mercifully, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge any notable information to [[Manchester derby article. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet another non-notable match. Mention on Manchester derby, nothing more. GiantSnowman 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Entertaining match, but no notability. Vanadus (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tedious. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 30 July 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.