Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls


 * 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 no consensus. Not relisting because there has already been substantial debate, and both sides have made valid arguments that are supported by policy. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  07:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While impressive, every game gets at least this much coverage in the media, this game does not requires its own article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I seriously think we need to rethink our guidelines on notability of some pop culture stuff, and sport articles like this are one of the major issues to consider. Yes, there's coverage, but WP:NOTNEWS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets notability standards -- pgp688 talk to me see my work 06:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which notability standards? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notabile.  There is already an article for the Hudson River derby.  We don't need an article for each game. KitHutch (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Going by "news coverage" (ie. results in Google News), this game has roughly four times the average coverage of a standard MLS game. In addition, articles for games in which the biggest league win margin occurred is relatively common, such as Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. in the Premier League and Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund in the Bundesliga. ♠ SG →Talk 14:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article is not about the rivalry per se, it's about the record win in MLS history. Per ♠ SG. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article has historical significance and is certainly notable via the massive amounts of media coverage it received. -- Kevin W.  - Talk  16:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Massive amount? Could you provide comparison to other matches on the weekend? 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per SG. Plenty of coverage to show this is notable, with a record-setting scoreline.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's definitely notable as the biggest margin of victory in MLS history, not even counting the NY/NY angle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the largest margins of victory. It's happened before. And are you saying that if there is a larger margin of victory, the article can be deleted because it's no longer the largest margin of victory? 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * redirect to Hudson River Derby where it should be mentioned, does not merit a separate article. GiantSnowman 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This definitely deserves to be part of the Hudson River Derby article, but isn't notable enough for its own. SixFourThree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep based on ♠ SG's reasoning. Che84 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and add a decent amount of content to Hudson River Derby.
 * The German game mentioned above isn't remotely comparable: apart from being a record score, it was a record score that the winners needed in order to overtake another team to win the championship, there was an investigation into possible match fixing and/or not trying, and 40 years on, the game is still talked and written about.
 * The difference between this and the Man Utd–Ipswich game mentioned above, is that this game was played 3 days ago, while Man Utd–Ipswich got a (no-consensus) keep at two AfDs largely because there were enough people pointing to ongoing coverage even though the match was played 15 years before. Obviously there's massive coverage of this one because of the score, the NY angle, and because it's just happened. That makes it a big news story now. But there's no free pass for a match article just because it set a record that might be broken in the next round of matches and it's getting massive news coverage in the first few days after it happened. Wait and see if it receives ongoing significant coverage once the novelty wears off. No prejudice against re-creation if it does. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:CRYSTAL works both ways. It's attracted significant coverage, and set a league record. And deleting on the grounds that it "might" be a novelty that wears off violates WP:CRYSTAL. Smartyllama (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction, tied league records. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is clear consensus that matches that are or were at a point in time the record winning margin in a nation's top competition are notable. Fenix down (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect - This should have a mention on the Hudson River Derby but it doesn't deserve its own article as it wouldn't be the strongest league in the world. So what if it was a big story in the US it doesn't mean that it should have an article. If it was another league like the Premier League or La Liga than I would say keep, but for now I would have to go for a redirect. Matt294069 is coming 01:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it's time to close this debate, there's a clear consensus that this article should stay and meets WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEWS. Quidster4040 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's time to close this debate, there's a clear consensus that this article should be deleted as WP:NOTNEWS and no one has provided proof that this event has received more coverage than any rivalry match. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2016 (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.