Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls (2nd nomination)


 * 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, again, unfortunately. There is significant disagreement on what should be covered and where, and little to no analysis of quality and availability of reference material. I imagine that there will be a third discussion at some point; if so, perhaps it can more directly tackle these issues rather than focusing on subjective perceptions of importance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Returning this highly contentious topic to AfD, where it belongs. First AfD ended in no consensus, but clearly this needs to return to AfD and now is as good a time as any. Safiel (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This article should have already been deleted. The arguments for keep were not strong at all. This was one of 34 regular season games. It was not a playoff game, it was not a crucial game during the season. It only tied for the largest win in MLS, which means nothing. It should just be a part of the Hudson River Derby article. Last time a non administrator ended the discussion, this time only an administrator should decide.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per Fenix's reasoning in the first AfD... also can the nominator not sound more salty. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does the consensus for Fenix's argument exist. I haven's seen one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 00:08, October 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Fenix and SG on the first AFD. The match will have some staying power, given that the only comparable result was in 1998, at the very beginning of the league's history, and similar margins are rare to come by in modern soccer.  Sounder Bruce  01:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just one regular season game. Also Borussia Dortmund just destroyed a team in the Champions League 6-0. I don't see any articles about that game, which sounds more notable than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 00:08, October 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: we already discussed this. And it looks like a majority believe it should be kept per Fenix in AfD. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply Discussed, yes, resolved, no. In the end, it ended in a no consensus, so another discussion is appropriate. Safiel (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I brought this back into AfD primarily as the result of an erroneous attempt to delete this via speedy deletion. Given that there is some contention regarding this article's existence, that would seem to me to be a good reason to return to AfD and get a final resolution of keep or delete, rather than no consensus, as happened in the first AfD. After some thought over the last day, I am going to go with a keep based on the arguments here and at the first AfD. Nevertheless, this AfD needs to go the distance and hopefully there will be enough of a consensus in either direction to get something other than a no consensus. Safiel (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what was said on the previous Afd, this game did not receive that great of media coverage. When I googled it, all I really found were results from the New York media and ESPNFC. A game of this little importance should not have the same size article that the MLS Final has. I also looked up other NYCFC games and they were covered by the same media sources. Also the only reason this article was created was probably because a Red Bulls fan wanted rub the result in NYCFC's face. No I am not a fan of either team.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hudson derby, does not merit a separate article. GiantSnowman 07:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Categories such as this and this as well as articles such as this give clear indication that results which at one point in time are / were the highest scoring match in a given league's history are notable. Sources in the article indicate coverage going beyond mere routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Major League Soccer records and statistics. There was nothing special about this game except for the score differential. Comparisons to Motherwell v Hibernian (5 May 2010) are not really on point here, as that was a record setting game for combined score, not score differential (and, for the record, the 11-point game that is the MLS recordholder in that regard doesn't have an article either, nor do I think it should). The AFD1 argument, raised by Fenix, that is being quoted by supporters here is that 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." However, examining how other games have been treated suggests that is simply not the case. For the MLS, the other two 7 point margin games do not have individual articles (not even redirects), but are merely included in the list I've suggested as the redirect target (and are mentioned, appropriately, in season articles). For the NFL, "largest margin of victory, single game" doesn't even seem to be a statistic listed in the giant NFL records list (highest total points in a game for both teams combined has its own list). Our coverage of the NBA mirrors that of the NFL; there is attention to the games with the highest total points scored, but no mention at all of the highest margin-of-victory. Now, I think margin of victory is a "useful" record to track, and it's pretty easy to find sourced information about that for the NFL (and probably the NBA, I didn't look). We should (and do!) include that in the MLS records list. But contrary to the assertion in the prior AFD, none of the comparable events in MLS -- nor in any other, similar sport -- have their own articles. There is a "clear consensus", but it is not one to retain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is well sourced and seems significant in the context of the rivalry between the two teams. LCrowter (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and add some content to Hudson River Derby, in which its significance in the context of the rivalry between the two teams is apparently so great that it doesn't even get a mention apart from its entry in the list of results... My comments at the first nomination suggested that existing articles used to suggest precedent weren't directly comparable, because they had features over and above the score. Some had been kept at AfD, e.g. Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. (albeit by no consensus), because they were receiving ongoing coverage many years after the event. This remains the case. This match tied a winning margin record: the existence of individual articles about matches that set winning margin records doesn't create consensus for the retention of all articles about sometime record holders. No prejudice against re-creation if it receives significant coverage; as yet, it hasn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a record performance, and the fact that it's a rivalry (and thus could theoretically be merged to the rivalry page) makes it more notable if anything, and certainly not less notable that it should change anyone's vote from keep to merge (with the rivalry page). Just because we can merge it there doesn't mean we should. The performance gathered significant attention, and clearly satisfies all relevant guidelines, like I said before in the last AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It did not receive significant news coverage. It only received coverage from the New York area. Also it doesn't deserve an article that is as long as one for the MLS Cup Final or Another major international final. A simple google search refutes Fenix's claim from the last Afd. It's not a game that anyone is going to ever look back at and say that it was important.


 * Keep - If this was just a record performance, I would have said a redirect. But this is notable because its a club with a long history and a roster that has been consistant for a long time, coming up against a club who have a lot of money and marquee players, but really are a club with no real core, just really Khaldoon Al Mubarak's American branch. Any onlooker would look at the prestigious names in the NYC FC line up (i.e David Villa, Andrea Pirlo, Frank Lampard) and say it should be an easy win for New York City. But it wasn't. It was a caterstrophic loss. This is more than just a 7-0 loss. Its a massive rethink of the way the world looks at football. Many owners look at the disaster that happened at NYC and see that you cant just immediately spend a billion million dollars and buy a good team and expect to be champions in your first year, because that's just not how football works. Meanwhile you look at Germany and at RB Leipzig, that's an example of a team built from the bottom and that became very sucessfull, and in 8 years its now a major powerhouse in German football after coming from the very bottom, the semi pro leagues in fact. In 5 years I suspect it will be near on par with the Bayerns and Reals of the world. But in 5 years time NYC will probably still be getting smashed 4-0 at home in a stadium that's barely 10% full, and they have probably spent and lost more money. Its a lot more than just a result, you see — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Mr Tombs. This is a very notable result, but perhaps the page could have a name change? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Nobody has been able to present any evidence to show that this game was notable. A consensus is not based on a democratic vote, so it seems clear to me that the consensus it to delete the article and add the content to the Hudson River Derby article. None of the users who have argued to keep it have provided evidence to support their reasoning. The argument to delete it is supported by facts. This game should not receive the same article length that the MLS Cup Final gets.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What evidence would satisfy you? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was featured on CNN's website (many notable sporting events are), sports illustrated magazine, USA Today, ESPN (not just ESPNFC). I've already researched it and did not find it mentioned through any of these sources.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable in comparison to articles like Doc Love being considered for delition. Why does the petty stuff matter and the important stuff doesn't? 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The claim is special interest in this a particular game, and I do not see it demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 October 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.