Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls (3rd 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 delete. No sustained coverage means this fails NOTNEWS. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

This article clearly should be deleted. This game was just a regular season game and it hardly received any media coverage to make it noteworthy. I don't know how a no consensus decision was rendered when I provided plenty of evidence to show that it should be deleted. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2017 (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. Both teams made the Playoffs in the end. The game barely received any media coverage and the article is treating like a final of a major tournament.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per the last two discussions. The nominator in question seems to have an obsession over this article and should be removed from the topic lest we keep wasting time on this nonsense.  Sounder Bruce  07:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Explain to me why this article should be kept it does not meet notability standards. I've give evidence of why and no one has given any evidence to show that this match was notable. This game is being treated like the world cup final, who cares who played in this game it's not notable. Certain sections of this article need to removed and simplified it contains way to much information for a regular season MLS game. Other users in the other two discussions also agreed with me, but for whatever reason the discussion kept ended in no consensus because a couple of people thought it should be kept and provided weak if any reasoning for it. This article makes wikipedia look bad because it's supposed to have important games profiled on it, but a regular season MLS game is not.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete 7–0 is not a hugely unusual result, even if it is the highest score in the MLS. I also don't see how "Speedy keep per the last two discussions" is a valid argument given that neither of the two previous AfDs resulted in a keep outcome (both ended as no consensus). Number   5  7  10:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 10:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was previously of an opinion that this should be kept as sourcing in the article indicated more than just coverage from match reports the day after the game. However, now more time has passed, I am not seeing any sustained coverage, so not of the opinion that this game has any lasting notability. Fenix down (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Fenix down Spiderone  19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  13:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable widely covered record MLS win that satisfies WP:N. --Jimbo[online] 12:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely covered and record-setting match which easily satisfies WP:GNG. Can we stop having this argument every few months? It's getting tiring and seems WP:POINT-y. Notability is not temporary. If it were notable before because of sustained coverage, it still is. Arguments that the coverage has stopped at this point are irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Hudson River Derby, does not merit a separate article. GiantSnowman 19:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How does it merit being moved in with the other Hudson River Derby games? Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep 14 external sources, I think that meets that section of GNG. It is only a regular season game, so I would be okay with a merge, but I think this article is okay on its own too. South Nashua (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sustain previous decisions to default to keep In reviewing the nominator's claims in the previous AfD, the viewpoint is based on personal opinion and does not cite Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or essays.  Also, the nominator clarifies in the previous AfD that he/she doesn't want the topic deleted.  Instead he/she calls for saving the topic by merging it, and for no identifiable WP:DEL-REASON then deleting the subsequent redirect with its edit history (see WP:MAD.  So there is no policy basis for a deletion, and merge and delete violates attribution requirements.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment My argument is not based on personal opinion. I did a simple Google search and the only sources that covered the game were sources that talk about every MLS game. Google it yourself and you will see that it was not a notable game. Also this article has way to much information, the Copa America final has a shorter article than this which frankly is ridiculous. Not to mention it's almost the same length as the MLS Cup Final article. This game did not receive a significant amount of coverage. The national media or international media did not cover it. It violates WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS in the fact that the game did not receive significant coverage and this article is basically a press release for the game.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing indicates this was such an exceptional game as to warrant a separate article. AusLondonder (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep plenty of coverage and citations, not to mention this article was nominated and accepted as a DYK candidate. Nothing has changed since the past two deletion discussion and there is nothing to suggest the "delete" votes have any new rational. As one voter put it above "notability is not temporary". Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per above. Nothing has changed since the last two discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To my mind that's exactly what has happened though, there has basically been no discussion of this match since about a week after it occurred, so it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Can you show any more recent sources which indicate that the match is still being referenced? Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - The above comment is correct, notability is not temporary, which is why we have WP:NOTNEWS. No enduring coverage of this match.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:36, 6 April 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.