Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle United F.C. 0–1 Crystal Palace F.C. (1907)


 * 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. I believe in all my tenure as an AfD closing admin so far this is the one which best illustrates what no consensus is about. One can try in a couple of years to see whether the consensus has been shifted.Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle United F.C. 0–1 Crystal Palace F.C. (1907)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested after 9 days; original rationale remains valid. The claim that this is "one of the greatest shocks of all time in the history of the FA Cup" is not supported by reliable sources, and the match has not been the subject of significant coverage. It is just another match - one of many a season - where a big club is defeated by a smaller club, causing minor ripples in the footballing world - nothing more, and nothing to make this one stand out. GiantSnowman 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * keep - In a season where they would win the league, were second in the league at the time of the match and were cup finalists the previous season. I would say Newcastle losing to the non-league crystal palace at home in the first round of the cup makes this match notable. Also the passage of over 100 years with this match being written about in reliable sources while few other 'giant killings' still are. =>  Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 14:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how notability works on Wikipedia. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources"? GiantSnowman 14:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It's nice to see a football article that's actually about a game of football rather than being yet another bio-stub or tedious list of stats and scorelines. The article already has plenty of sources; here's another: Football's Giant Killers: 50 Great Cup Upsets. Warden (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sure, there's a minimal amount of coverage; but there's little notable about this match. We do not have articles on other "big upsets", and nor should we. It's not even a cup final match - just a run-of-the-mill early round fixture that had an unexpected result. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am hampered by not being able to read the newspaper reports of the period but (anyway, and particularly after looking at the article creator's contribution record) I am willing to accept that the coverage was substantial. In itself this could be regarded as merely routine reporting but I see the match is still being written about by reliable sources over a hundred years later. To me that establishes notability in the WP:GNG sense. I think it a defect that WP:Notability (sports) has little historical perspective (although WP:SPORTSEVENT does seem to be met) and that WP:NFOOTY restricts itself to personalities. However, those are problems with the specific guidelines and not with the article itself. Thincat (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete IMO, cup shocks fall under WP:ROUTINE. Plus some of the stuff in the introduction ("the equivalent of the current Premier League") is cringeworthy. Number   5  7  12:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet criteria from WP:EVENT guideline; routine sports reporting jni (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it does meet those criteria; especially WP:PERSISTENCE. Warden (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't see any indication that this is a particularly notable match. The article itself states that it is the equivalent of a Division 1 team beating a Premier League team. This is not really a particularly rare occurrance. Additionally, most of the sources explaioning how this is a shock are of dubious reliability. Nine references seem to come from a random personal website. Of the remaining recent sources, presumably those cited as showing WP:PERSISTENCE, a significant number of them are from a book called We All Follow The Palace, which sounds like a book written by and for fans, so not a reliable source or from a Crystal Palace matchday programme. I can't see anything to indicate that this match has received significant coverage a "great FA Cup shock" in any truly independant sources. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously, as creator. It meets the GNG, it was discussed widely in newspapers at the time and was the first great cup upset in the history of the FA Cup. Any clunky text is based on me copying the format of the article Hereford United 2–1 Newcastle United, where you can clearly find the text "the equivalent of the current Premier League." I would suggest that most of the participants in this debate are suffering from something akin to WP:RECENTISM, in that only recent events seem to them to be worthy of inclusion. I'd also note that We All Follow The Palace is more than a book written by and for fans; the history of the club was written by Tony Matthews who has authored numerous books on Football Club History. It's also somewhat disingenuous to suggest the book is written for the fans, given that most books, indeed most things in general, are bought by fans of the book itself.  Attempting to cast aspersions on something because people buy it seems an odd argument to make. A book about a football club will inevitably be bought by fans of that club. The article has been amended to suggest it is the equivalent of a League One side, not a Division One side as Division One is the second division and the article was at one point in time suggesting the third division.  In actuality, what happened is a club that had been formed the previous season and were playing non-league football beat the champions of England. It is hard to think of something equivalent in this day and age happening, a club formed in 2011 beating Manchester United the first round of the cup? The stuff of legends! I would in summary point out that Notability is not superseded by the local, specific, consensus in WP:EVENT.  There are not two hurdles to be jumped here, the notability guidance is quite clear on this: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below. Nobody has found an issue with the GNG, the article has sources in the press of the day and I suspect there are others in more recent papers but I do not as yet have access to the correct libraries nor the time to find them.  I presume they exist and the presumption is that the match is of note. Best regards Hiding T 16:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think it really is a strange argument to suggest that a book specifically written to be marketed at fans (the title "We all Follow Palace" is a bit of a giveaway) would be inherently unreliable. Of course events like this are going to be talked up, because the people to whom the book is marketed have an inherent desire to read about such events. Your comment about a two year old team beating Man U is a bit disengenuous as well as Newcastle were barely 15 years old at the time! Your comment that nobody has found issue with GNG is also disengenuous. Everybody who says delete has by definition! Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost all books are marketed at people who're interested in the subject, whether it's a book about a sports team, sportsperson, writer, musician, politician, or religious topic. RS makes it clear that a reliable source does not have to be unbiased. If you have specific concerns that the author does not meet WP:RS, explain them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep:This is indeed an important match where a Premier League club was defeated by a non league club.Also there are plenty of references.This type of articles are kept.Ex Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund RRD13 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Firstly you can't really use the Premier v non-league analogy for matches played at the time there was not a minimum of four divisions, nor anywhere near the number of clubs that exist now. Secondly, you can't really compare a FA cup match with the all-time record victory in the Bundesliga. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Coverage well beyond GNG. What's "disengenuous" and "cringeworthy" – if anything – is members of Wikiproject Football following their three-line whip and rigging the discussion by voting en bloc as usual. All but one of the delete votes are from WP:FOOTBALL which as a project lacks any objectivity and is increasingly taking on the aspect of a circle jerk. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Upsets are, by definition, unexpected, but that doesn't mean they aren't routine. I'm sure this is of great interest to Crystal Palace fans, but it's overall significance hasn't been demonstrated. There's a high bar to meet for individual football matches, and this doesn't pass it. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-written, adequately sourced and an interesting article. If the nominator has a problem with one specific line in it, he could always contribute by improving the article rather than deleting it. Hmlarson (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's well written and referenced, but that's not a good reason to keep, nor is the fact that it may be interesting. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, guess I forgot to include reference to the WP:GNG guideline in my first sentence. My mistake - but thanks to the links to that essay. Hmlarson (talk)
 * 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.