Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Comeback Kings


 * 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. There was certainly some interesting discussion going on here, but in the end the great majority of those arguing to keep this material are not rooted in policy, ie. other stuff exists or reasons based on opinion. When the arguments not rooted in policy are discounted there is a clear consensus that this is not notable enough for inclusion. Shereth 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Miracle of Geneva

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Keep: The Euro Cup is the third most watched sporting event in the world, and certainly deserves an entry for such a fantastic comeback under such pressured conditions.
 * Delete: Unless the match takes place in a World Cup, then I don't think it deserves it's own page. Virusbluemage
 * So you'tre saying the European Championship Tournament or whatever it is officially called is not significant? That is hardly true NewYork483 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's way to early to determine the historical notability of this match to deserve a separate article. And plus it's almost all copied from UEFA Euro 2008 Group A. Do U(knome)? yes...  | or no  · 01:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it is not uncommon practice for significant games, seasons, etc in other sports to have an article page before the game is played, especially with the media hype that can be generated by certain games and sporting events. As for it being a copy of another article, that's a reason to "fix it" not "delete it"--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's not too early. The match, viewed from a separate point of view (than the tournament), should be allowed to stay. Yes, parts of it were taken from other articles, since they clarified it well. I hope this stays —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reisender (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this match has a historical significance. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The match will, in all eventuality, carry the exact same notable and historic context of any other number games in European Championship and World Cup history that have their own pages. The precedent has already been set that extremely noteworthy football games get their own page. To disallow the page to continue merely because it doesn't YET have historical relevance is the definition of stupidity. By acknowledging that it one day will, but does not now, you are saying that Wikipedia should never create ANY articles until we know of their exact relevance in history. This is why we have editing capabilities in the first place: to expand or shrink articles in accordance with their perceived historical relevance. To get rid of it entirely is to not only ignore precedent, but to call into question the creation of ANY article shortly after the event in question takes place. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, but someone store the code. Just because a journo coins a phrase, it is not notable.  If that name for the game gains some permanance, and spreads to become widely recognised as a reference to this game, it can be resurrected. But I suspect that most people will think of it as "that game where Cech goofed and Turkey were lucky not to face a shot after their goalie got sent off".  Kevin McE (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The title absolutely isn't notable, but the game itself is due to the fact that the Turks were facing elimintation down 2-0 with 15 minutes to go and came back not only to draw but to win. NewYork483 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete... Or maybe keep... hmm, Ok, it was a great game. And the last minute turn around worthy of Man U '99. But I don't think the game will hold importance. If Turkey go all the way, this match will not be singled out as extra important over all their other matches, and it will instead be called "The Miracle in Austria" or "When Turkey finally conquered Vienna" or something. If they crash out directly, everyone will forget about this match anyway. At most these could be some extra info added in the Group article. Along the lines of UEFA Euro 2004 Group C which hold a memorable match (probably as much for all Swedes, Danes and Italians as this match for Turks) &mdash; chandler &mdash; 06:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is just another match like any other where a team has made a comeback. There are hundreds of such games, this one is no different or as irrelevant as those multitude others are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzyear (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Aritajustino (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as wrote Buzzyear, it's just a match. And it's not a miracle (well, it may be, if Turkey beats Brazil in the final match of World Cup). Abdullais4u (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete One mediocre side beat another mediocre side in a group stage match. See miracle on ice to see a real sporting miracle.--Berkunt (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Miracle?? I've seen plenty of other better comebacks. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge content into the the existing article for all the matches in that group. The name was coined by one journalist which merits it being a redirect and perhaps a mention on the existing article. The reference is to the miracle of bern which was another surprise victory but that was in a world cup final - not a EURO group match. This content can be easily incorporated into the existing article and, in any case, the title is by no means consensus or NPOV. Witty Lama 11:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. For one thing, the nae miracle is a biase towards Czech who probably don't call it like that. As well, the mentioning in the Group A article is enough, some commentary fits there. --Tone 11:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For a similar case, check Articles for deletion/Battle of Nuremberg. Thanks. --Tone 11:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean biased towards the Turks' Witty Lama 12:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I see a lot of the reasons given here are because the game isn't a "miracle" or might not be a "miracle" or whatever. that would be a reason to rename the article or move the article, not to delete the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It has no special difference from respective part of UEFA Euro 2008 Group A. The "miracle" is NPOV - there are enough (or too many (from other POV)) similar matches in football history. Alex Spade (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep...for now This game is currently notable given the fact that it just happened and was deemed important. If history in a few months or even after the tournament is over, parts from the article can be copied onto related articles and this article deleted. VarunRajendran (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This seems to be another article about a soccer game given a title that seems bound to mislead and confuse.  Is there some sort of standard about referring to notable soccer games by dates and competitors? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no need for this article above all other games. Limited content best placed in main Euro 2008 article. - fchd (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFF-Wikipedia is far from complete. The absence of another similar article at any given time does not negate the need for this article.
 * Delete per above. no establishment of notability <Baseballfan789 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Weak keep being talked about as one of the greatest games in Euro history a couple days after the match. some notability is established user:Dorftrottel 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Obviously" is obviously not a real reason to delete or keep anything. Please state your reasons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You and people like you. user:Dorftrottel 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Many things make this game notable, memorable and significant. The comeback, substantial number of yellow cards in a game, a sub receiving the yellow, goalkeeper receiving a red, the goal being defended by a midfielder (?), etc. etc. etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.14.187 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The other reason for this deserving a keep status is because Turkey haven't beaten the Czech(oslovakia) since 1956! It is worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Define miracle, is it a miracle for a large group of people or is it just a miracle for the turks?, no offens to the turkish people. I can come up with more matches that have ended in similare way so i dont think its a miracle, just a match that containd excitment from start untill end --> Halmstad, Talk:Halmstad 21:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment again, that's just a reason to "rename" or "move" the article, not to delete it. What about the content itself?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: but rename Broonsparrow (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the Czech point of view I can assure you it is quite notable for many reasons outlined above by other users. Keep but rename. - Darwinek (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't personally care for futbal/football/soccer/whatever because I'm a silly American... but I want to draw a parallel: Wikipedia College Football is a project on American football at the college/university level that has guidelines that considers all regular season games, conference championship games, and bowl games deserving of an article.  The logic is that when two notable teams play each other, the result is a noteworthy event.  Why should this be any different? -- That said, I'd encourage the project to work on some standards for article names for single games.  I think the article should be re-named to a standard style (something like 2008 Turkey v Czech Republic World Cup Match--whatever the WikiProject Football comes up with) But I'm okay with keeping the article, and I think it is nicely done.  It's a significant sporting world event.  I'm glad it was restored and I hope the result of this discussion is keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a seriously inclusive guideline!! If that was applied even just to the English professional club game, it would mean that 175,671 matches to date could be said to deserve their own articles...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the kind of thing where the project allows for the articles to be created, but does not insist on their creation. The purpose is to create guidelines for format and naming of the articles and make for a more clean approach to the project and to allow for lists of games and seasons.  Certainly not every game has an article, far from it.  BUT just because that would give a large number of articles does not in itself negate that the articles can or even should be created.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A tidy bit of editing, but makes no attempt to explain what makes it notable, other than one side beating another after being behind, which is hardly unusual. No cites and appears to be entirely original research with clear and heavy-handed bias.  Would need a complete re-write and re-naming to be acceptable. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article certainly and clearly does explain why it is notable, in the first sentence... it's a "match at the 2008 UEFA European Football Championships As for not having citing of sources, appearing to be original research, and existance of bias all are surmountable problems.  That means "fix it" not "delete it."--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiNews.  Not every sports match is inherently notable and no convincing evidence has been presented that this one is unusual.  This level of detail vastly exceeds the appropriate level of scope for an encyclopedia.  If we have other articles with this same level of coverage, the right answer is to clean them up too, not to perpetuate the problem.  Rossami (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly subjective article title and it was one group match whic hasn't decided the winners of the compeition and simply resulted in Turkey qualifying for the quarter-finals. Whilst it is definitely worthy of mention in the main Euro 2008 article it is not worthy of inclusion on it's own. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. They'll be talking about this match ten years from now, and not just in Turkey and the Czech Rep. See Category:Football (soccer) matches for many more matches, few of as great importance as this.  slυмgυм [ ←→ &#93; 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of those matches were finals of tournaments, or remarkable for record scorelines or other major historic interest. This one is a fairly run of the mill tournament group game, enlivened by five minutes at the end. In the great scheme of things, of limited notability in its own right. - fchd (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Talked about for 10 years?... It will be forgotten after Croatia beat Turkey. If Turkey go and win the whole thing, this match won't be singled out, if anything the Final will be the match in history &mdash; chandler &mdash; 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - if some writing about this match can be found that discusses it outside a match summary, I think it should be kept. If not, there shouldn't be.  Right now the article is not properly referenced, and that desperately needs to be done. matt91486 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article has now been properly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. it has a name attached to it now, and there will be detailed published discussion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. An run-of-the-mill game in a tournament, that happened to be quite exciting.  It wasn't "greatly important" (there will be precisely 7 games of greater importance in this tournament alone), it wasn't a "miracle", despite some tabloid headlines.  WP:Recentism applies here, I think.  Just because there's been a few press articles about the game doesn't mean it warrants an article.  Every game at the tournament recieves significant press coverage.  Some other issues vaguely related to the tournament receive tons more. The Cristiano Ronaldo transfer saga has received (8122 mentions on Google News  versus 1378  for this game - note Italy-France has 3176 mentions ).  A footnote, and any necessary information belongs in the Group A article. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  07:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting you reference WP:Recentism... that article itself states "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are — but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists. Maturity, judgment and the passage of time are sometimes required to provide proper perspective." So I would agree that the content and title of the article may be subject of point-of-view embellishments, but that doesn't make it non-notable.  I suggest we follow the recommendation of the article you reference and keept the article, allowing the passage of time to help clarify judgement.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as stated above, the only notable thing about this match was that the last twenty minutes or so were quite exciting, other than that it was no more significant than any other match in the group stages of this tournament. Comebacks from two goals down (or more) happen all the time (there was a Football League match in the 20th century when a team, I think it was Huddersfield, came back from 5 goals down to win, I can hardly see anyone creating an article on that), and the keeper getting sent off and an outfield player spending 30 seconds in goal without ever touching the ball does not in any way make a match historically significant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. it has a name attached to it now, and there will be detailed published discussion, being talked about as one of the greatest games in Euro history a couple days after the match, notability is established.-- Zentuk Bir Papyrus 08:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to have copied Casliber's comment and added a bit. Where is it being talked about as "one of the greatest games in Euro history"? People keep saying this but nobody has any reliable sources. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B>  08:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_cordoba" (The Miracle of Cordoba) can have can article, so can this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This was an excellent game, but no more or less noteworthy than any other group match. Just become someone's attached a name to it (in the vein of the Miracle of Bern, which carried massive significance beyond football) doesn't mean it deserves its own article. Dancarney (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There were many interesting and entertaining games for all sides, this is no different and deserves no special mention. The match is only being discussed in a few small circles, the majority of football people do not really care about this match. As for the title "The Miracle of Geneva", that is a misnomer, as there was no miracle, only a few lucky goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exactmonth2008 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It was a reasonably entertaining group game with an exciting finish; that's all. It has no historical significance. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to an article called Turkey at Euro 2008 (or something like that) - tonight's game was almost as ridiculous. To have two (arguably three) major comebacks in a row in a major tournament is notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Move Per User:Jmorrison230582. Drizzt   Ja  mo  22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it can be renamed, but should not be deleted. This match deserves to be an article.--Cfsenel (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/ EXPAND  - Why is this still being debated? Turkey have done what no Team has done at an Euro competition.. 3 Wins at the last seconds straight (thus why this needs expanding). Also, if this were England this article would be long approved. Lets not forget, this is HISTORIC since this is the FIRST TIME Turkey enter SEMIFINALS!!!!!!!!!
 * Keep This does not happen every day and will be valued once. However, Wikinews is better place for such article. Yet it does not harm anything on wikipedia, let it be as it is. --Aktron (t|c) 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I moved it to The Comeback Kings, as this is what Turkey is known for in this euro. I will expand the article soon, adding all the matches they played thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reisender (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - where's the evidence that they are known as "The Comeback Kings"? That's a fairly generic title. - fchd (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Name change made with no consensus, and very little logic. A few people, talking in the context of the current tournament, might have refered to Turkey by this cliché, but does anyone seriously believe that, in 10 years time, use if that phrase will automatically make people remember this game?  Nonsense.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Like the article, hate the title.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment still delete it, there existed a similar article for the Greece 2004 campaign, but it got deleted/merged into the nft article, the same should be done here. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 06:33, 22 June 2008 (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.