Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage F.C. 3–1 Newcastle United F.C.


 * 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   merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. Does not have coverage that would not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As for the rivalry, there is insufficient coverage demonstrating its notability. However, the match may warrant inclusion in Stevenage's article as an important event in their history. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 07:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stevenage F.C. 3–1 Newcastle United F.C.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable football match. Yes, it was a cup shock, but nothing too out of the ordinary (see Shrewsbury 2 Everton 1 for another example of a Premier League team losing at fourth tier opponents), and despite the claims of the IP that deprodded the article, it is not the first time a fourth tier club has beaten Premier League opposition by two goals - this happened when Brisol Rovers beat Derby 3-1 in 2002. Number  5  7  22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Number   5  7  22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it's probably the most significant match in Stevenage's history. Also the link to the match 13 years ago makes it particularly noteworthy - perhaps that element could be expanded; the article could even be about the two ties. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RECENT. A surprising result, but games like these aren't that uncommon - League Two Notts County defeated Premier League opposition just last year. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT particularly WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not an almanac, nor a collection of statistics, nor a news source. This has attracted a lot of media attention and maybe passes WP:GNG because it's a football game not just the result, so you could end up having an article on any major sporting match because of the thirst of modern media. But at the end of the day, it's just a cup game between two league sides - there were about 40 such at the weekend - which ended up with a surprise result - note the difference between positions of Crawley-Derby on Monday night was just the same. There would be scores of similar results every season. At this moment unlike the Hereord-Newcastle game which has an article, it doesn't stand the test of time, since it was just a few days since the game. At this moment in time, delete. Brad78 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Saw this was up for deletion, so created an account as it would be an absolute travesty if this got deleted. Completely agree with 'ArtVandelay' in that the match 13 years ago goes some way to making this a very notable article. The history between the two teams has been noticed as well, which makes it even more impressive. Given the history and the huge attention both sets of games have got, this is definitely an article to be kept. Anyone who knows anything about football would know this article has more to do than just the 2010–11 match, the rivalry has gone on for years. Footgreb (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * — Footgreb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The rivalry hasn't gone on for years. Stevenage have only met Newcastle in first-team competitive action three times - twice in 1998, the first game and then the replay and once in the game above. There are countless real rivalries across world football and each game doesn't get an article because "the rivalry has gone on for years". Brad78 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The rivalry has gone on for years, you just have to ask Stevenage and Newcastle fans about the feeling between the two clubs. Teams don't have to have met 100s of times for it to be a rivalry. Anyway the rivalry is an "undercurrent" that adds to the match and article imo. Abatar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not many years, let's face it. And fans of neither club are reliable references. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This match isn't unusual enough - fourth tier clubs defeating top tier clubs is rare but not notably so. There are many examples of this kind of thing, and the history between the two teams is frankly almost insignificant - they've only met three times. Such "rivalries" number in the hundreds. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Plus it's a score, not a title. How many games between the two teams have finished with the same scores?--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Decent article. Don't think we can ever have enough articles like this, clearly referenced and a very notable match with an ending that won't happen again for years and years. A squad costing £20,000 beating a multi-million pound team 3-1...wow. Should be kept. Abatar (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * — Abatar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * By those standards, we would have literally thousands of similar articles, and yes, that is too many. It being a "decent article" does not make the match notable enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: The Keep arguments are not remotely persuasive. There's no "rivalry;" the teams play every rare once in a while.  The alleged importance in Stevenage's history notwithstanding, that's a reason nowhere found in inclusion criteria, nor is it anything that is impossible to include on Stevenage's page ... why, look, it already is.  Nor are results like this unheard of in sport; somewhere in the world tomorrow, some heavy underdog is going to paste a frontrunner in some sport somewhere.  (Let's leave aside the two SPAs who "just happened" to see this was up for deletion.)  This is a complete recentism argument, pure and simple.   Ravenswing  02:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and failing WP:Sports event. While you may try and argue it fufils the 4th criteria ("a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable"), the vast majority of the coverage cited is the sort of routine coverage of any match with the minor history this one has every time the first or second weekend of January rolls around. It certainly is not the Battle of Santiago nor even Hereford United v Newcastle United 1972, not yet at least anyway. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season as per Oldelpaso's suggestion. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Firstly, the top of the page tells users to "assume good faith" - something that 'Ravenswing' has clearly failed to do. I think it's quite telling that three different people have made Wikipedia accounts to comment on this article deletion, but there we go. I think it'd be rude not to say well done to the user who has spent time working on this. For all of its proclaimed rights and wrongs, someone has spent a decent amount of time on producing this article, which should be applauded. As for the article itself, I think the two separate cup ties have been not only significant for Stevenage F.C., but also for the FA Cup, both times the clubs have played have produced notable outcomes. Those who have chosen the option of 'delete' only have "clipboard answers" – there's no common sense in it at all I'm afraid. The article should stay, it's notable to the two clubs, English football, and to the world's best football cup competition. Kleek Thorpe (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * — Kleek Thorpe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Our overwhelming experience is that accounts created specifically to dispute AfDs - especially where they differ dramatically from consensus of more experienced editors - are done so at the behest of a single editor, which is a serious violation of the rules. That being said, a very common mistake with newcomers is to mistake "notable" for "I think it's important," rather than "notable according to the pertinent policies and guidelines of Wikipedia," as we mean it here.  Do you have any arguments founded in Wikipedia policy or guideline to proffer?   Ravenswing  12:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete . Ah, the Gas beating Derby. What sweet memories! And that match was even more remarkable than this one because Rovers were the away team, although it probably isn't their most remarkable cup result. Anyway, I digress. Wikipedia is not a news service, and there's no indication that this result is as memorable as, say, Hereford-Newcastle or Sutton-Coventry. Bettia   (talk)  10:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season - Oldelpaso's suggestion below is a sensible one. Bettia   (talk)  09:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Another giant killing and example of recentism. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Spiderone  11:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I originally thought delete per WP:NOTNEWS. But I'm reconsidering. One criterion we often apply is "Would this article receive detailed mention in a reasonable history of one, or both, of the two teams?". I'm thinking this might be a "yes" for Stevenage, but I'm unsure. If Stevenage were non-league, I'd say a definite "keep". If a more prominent team, it'd be a clear "delete". But with the team's lack of much glory to write about, this may well be a prominent result. It may be too soon to say. I'll ponder and return. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is potential here for a Stevenage - Newcastle rivalry page covering both games, 1998 and 2011, and this would be a valid redirect to that page. WP:PRESERVE therefore indicates a keep outcome, seeing as that rivaly page does not yet exist, and much of it's content could come from this page. There is adequate coverage (example) of this as a rivalry to meet WP:EVENT's requirements for GNG level evidence of lasting, in-depth coverage. It's not routine for sports media to devote whole pieces about past matches as pre-match coverage, unless there is a notable rivalry already, so it also meets WP:Sports event too. Given that the actual result of the 2011 game was clearly a major cup upset on its won, as per the sources already in the article, this only adds to the case of the likely enduring notability of the rivalry, should they ever meet a third time (which is not exactly an impossiblility). Granted, a Newcastle Stevenage rivalry page will not receive as many page views as England Germany, but as an issue for Afd, that's completely irrelevant, as is the fact that the rivalry would obviously mean more to Stevenage than it would to Newcastle, in a history of the respective clubs. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your argument boils down to a large WP:CRYSTAL violation. "Potential" for a rivalry?  "Evidence of lasting" coverage?  "Should they ever meet a third time"?  Nor does WP:PRESERVE indicate anything of the sort; this is not a matter of a problem article calling for improvement - the article is as long and as heavily footnoted as the article for either team, itself something of a WP:UNDUE issue - but one that ought not exist in the first place.   Ravenswing  16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Boils down to CRYSTAL? I referred to the future in one out of five sentences of my post, and in a quite plausuble way. And why you've included the word 'potential' with that view, I have no idea - there is a 'potential' rivarly article here, based on already extant sources and events. No crystal balling there. And from PRESERVE: "Instead of deleting text, consider....moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)....merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect". Instead of deletion, I am proposing creating a new article, using some of the text and sources already present here, and redirecting this title to that article. So it seems like a relevant policy to cite to me. As for UNDUE, it's irrelevant, I am not proposing keeping this article, so it's current size relative to others, is neither here nor there. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the merge suggested? Bettia   (talk)  11:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very sensible. The enduring notability here is the rivalry, and that covers at least two season articles. Even if there was a general History of Stevenage F.C article, I doubt it would be sensible to merge the details of a two club rivalry, to just one club's articles. No, there is either a standalone rivalry article to be salvaged here, or there isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But do two cup matches a decade apart constitute a rivalry? Bristol Rovers have played Man United 7 times but no-one would ever consider that a rivalry. I doubt Newcastle fans would consider Stevenage as rivals, certainly not as much as Sunderland or Middlesbrough, as there's no real history between the two teams. And do Stevenage fans even consider Newcastle as their rivals? As far I know, they'd name Luton in that respect. Bettia   (talk)  14:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there anything about the previous meetings of Bristol Rovers and Man United that was similar to the 1998 game here? Would the coverage before any of those games have referred to the previous ones in the way sources did with this one? This was not just two football matches, like any other routine but infrequent cup-pairing pairing, read the article or the sources if you're not clear on that score. And nobody has ever suggested that this is seen in the same light as a Tyne-Wear derby, that's just ridiculous. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the last meeting was a run-of-the-mill league match almost 40 years ago, the previous matches wouldn't have had the same amount of media hype. However, if they were to be drawn together again, Rovers' 4-0 win over the Busby Babes in the 1956 FA Cup would probably get more than a fleeting mention. Bettia   (talk)  21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well ... to those who insist that two games a decade is a "rivalry," I have a suggestion: go to any of the sports Projects and make that assertion. (Cue the raucous laughter.)  Heck, if we stick to soccer, every team in the FA (as is the case for many national leagues) plays all the teams in their respective leagues not twice a decade, but twice a season. Does anyone fancy that there's a noteworthy "rivalry" between Aston Villa and Manchester City?  Between Crystal Palace and Ipswich Town?  Between Leyton Orient and Bristol Rovers?  Between the New England Revolution and Real Salt Lake?  No, I rather expect not ... and if the "rivalry" here is all that "enduring" or notable, I challenge anyone to come up with a single reliable source saying so before last Friday.   Ravenswing  16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. 'Just don't look after Friday.' I really can't think why you included that caveat. It's probably a stupid question to ask if you've even looked. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, funny that you ask. Yes, as it happens, I did.  I hit up UK Google News for "Stevenage" + "Newcastle" + "rivalry" and came up with eight hits .  Not a single one of them asserts that there's any rivalry between those two clubs; what almost all of them DO reference is the rivalry between Newcastle and Sunderland, Newcastle's next match, and whether NU is up to snuff to hold up their end of the rivalry after the loss to Stevenage.  So you're partially right, come to that ... why did I bother with a caveat?  I'll correct that now.   Ravenswing  18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Further to my comment above, I think this is indeed a historic match for Stevenage - the club's official website doesn't even possess a history section. That it's not significant in FA Cup history or in the history of NUFC (both of which I agree with) is therefore irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -Yes it's well written but it just isn't notable in wider football terms. The fact that it is notable for Stevenage seems to imply that games with shocks, scoring records etc. for all clubs deserve articles and I don't believe Wiki needs that.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. The match is of far more importance to Stevenage than Newcastle. There no guarantee that this match will be talked of outside Stevenage for anything beyond the next round of the competition. However, including it in the season article — where it would go alongside details of another significant event for Stevenage, their first league season — would allow it to be covered in reasonable depth without issue. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable match in the history of Stevenage F.C., seems to have enough sources to make a decent article, and plenty of context when the previous tie is taken into account. The BBC did a pre-match article focusing exclusively on the rivalry between the sides so if the match itself isn't kept, a Restructure might be an option? - JVG (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes this has coverage, but not "substantial" coverage - most of the reports seem to regurgitate the same old nonsense about "giant-killing", "old rivalry" etc. when anyone with a decent understanding of the sport knows that this simply isn't the case. Maybe (maybe) it'll prove itself to have a lasting impact in the future, but we don't have crystal balls that see into the future, so can't make that assumption. GiantSnowman 19:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "when anyone with a decent understanding of the sport knows that this simply isn't the case" – Christ, you really know nothing about football do you? As a Stevenage fan I can tell you there is very much bitterness and rivalry there, and I think a League Two side beating a Premier League team 3–1 can be described as a giant-killing, which is why it has been. SBFCEditSBFCEdit 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that this is not an unsual result, and not one which is sufficient enough to merit its own article. Giantkillings happen all the time, big whoop. GiantSnowman 21:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @SBFC: It certainly is a giantkilling, however there is nothing in any of Wikipedia's notability criteria that says a giantkilling is worthy of an article. Brad78 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment The idea that the match is notable in the history of Stevenage FC is irrelevant. By that token, all notable clubs could have a few matches notable in their histories, all of which could have articles. Thousands of new articles on fairly minor football matches. That's not what an encyclopedia needs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. The match might be notable in time, but it only happened a few days ago, and the contents though well-sourced are basically routine reporting; assuming lasting significance would IMO be WP:CRYSTAL. It's clearly a major event in Stevenage's season, and a significant event in their history so far, and a giant-killing. But as yet, we just can't tell if it will have any lasting and substantial coverage once the novelty wears off. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - relevant information should be included in the season article. Just another Cupset. --Jimbo[online] 13:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - just an average match, albeit one with an unexpected (but not unbelievable) scoreline. Merge relevant parts to Stevenage or 2010–11 FA Cup. Bazonka (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with either 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season or Stevenage F.C.. This isn't notable enough to have it's own article but it seems a shame to get rid of the info since it appears to be a pretty well put together article. BUC (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:RECENTISM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:56, 19 January 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.