Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004)


 * 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. It appears that folks on both sides of the argument critically looked at the references and came up with different opinions J04n(talk page) 15:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004)
AfDs for this article:  


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has gone through AfD twice before: in 2009 as Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur v Manchester City (FA Cup 2003-04), where it was merged into another article, and then in 2010 as Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C., where it was deleted. It's always possible that the match has become more notable in the past several years, but it would be the exception, especially as it hadn't been notable in the first several years after it happened given that it didn't survive either of the previous AfDs. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 04:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT. Non-notable match. GiantSnowman 08:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN. There is always another great match, if there wasn't there would be no point watching. Szzuk (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The refs as pointed out in a conversation below are much better than I'd imagined. Szzuk (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even nearly 15 years later, this match is still referred to as one of the greatest in FA Cup history. City weren't the team they are now, and to come back from 3 goals down, while it isn't unheard of, is pretty bloody rare. – PeeJay 10:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - whilst this match gets a little sustained coverage as a "great comeback", this seems to me to be almost always in the company of over "great comebacks". I'm not really sure I am seeing the required level of significant, sustained coverage of this match as an event on its own to satisfy GNG and counterbalance WP:NOTNEWS. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think the key issue here is there is not enough to suggest lasting notability. The game did not have any significant impact on that season's FA Cup or other competitions. While it is occasionally mentioned as a great comeback, so are plenty of other matches (eg Portugal North Korea in 1966) and I do not think there is enough sustained coverage of the match to warrant an article of its own. Moreover there is no evidence it has become any more notable since it was deleted in the past. Dunarc (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is always down to the citations provided and there are 29 of them, most of the citations are provided by the major UK news services of the day. This is inherent for GNG which I was say provides a strong case. Yes single games can have a wealth of coverage, but it's down to the legacy of said game. My first verdict would be to keep this. If an admin comes along and thinks otherwise, the other alternative is somehow merge some of this content and redirect to 2004–05 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season as to not loose the importance of the game as a historical perspective. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I won't go into how I believe that this is notable and is not WP:NOTNEWS because as the article creator I feel it should be obvious that I believe it's suitable for inclusion. What I would like to ask those who have voted, however, is what criteria they are using to judge this article? Or to put it another way, when no-one has ever really agreed and put down in writing what is notable in an article then can this AfD be seen as a fair trial, or is it not something of a scattergun approach with everyone voting according to gut feeling and personal bias? Would a better test of public opinion not be to establish a consensus first and then come back to judge individual articles afterwards, especially since I would suspect that the majority of people who patrol the AfD debates would likely consider themselves Deletionists and therefore this AfD is likely to produce something of an inherent bias anyway? Falastur2 Talk 22:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The concept of great football entertainment doesn't translate unless it is combined with a specific result (such as winning a trophy), it is just too subjective, for example I think county cricket is hugely entertaining and could think of dozens of matches which for entertainment value alone are deserving of a page (I could also reference them), do you see the problem? The article looks good so it has more chance than most matches of this type. Szzuk (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I see the problem? Honestly, I don't. I disagree that great football entertainment doesn't translate unless it combines with a specific result (I feel that idea devalues the entire existence of the game) but that is inconsequential because I don't believe that this game is notable for being entertaining. I believe that it is notable because a team on a poor run of form coming back from a three goal deficit to win outright, in regular time, away from home, having been reduced to ten men while still three goals down, constitutes one of the more remarkable comebacks in football and the fact that it has continued to receive recognition for that in the press only serves to reinforce my belief. I also believe that it is no less notable than several dozen other match articles which exist on Wikipedia, yet none of which have ever been AfDed. It's this clear lack of consistency that leads me to question whether we should not be formulating policy first and then AfDing afterwards. Falastur2 Talk 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The key to keeping articles of this kind is highlighting the enduring notability of the match, if the match has been noted in reliable sources since then, for example 2009, or 2013, then bring them to this AfD. Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Have you even looked at the citations on the article, as 3,4,5,13,16,18,19 clearly are far from 2004 where they are articles referencing the game as a historic comeback. I really don't understand why people don't even look properly at the article and come to a conclusion this conclusion, all the delete votes have failed to spot the historic inclusions and are disregarding pure GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was asked to help, because the odds of this getting deleted are so high I agreed, so having a pop at me is a little unfair. I don't have time to read 29 references. So now you know what is wrong with the article, it reads like any other match summary. I'm unsubscribing from the thread say what you will. Szzuk (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the refs and have changed my vote accordingly. Szzuk (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. To give an example, some years ago I watched my team win 4-3 after being 3-0 down with only 19 minutes left.  Some of the match reports from that game refer to various flavours of amazing / greatest comebacks, a "...will be talked about for years to come" etc.  Yet I doubt if anyone bar supporters of the two teams involved will even remember it.  It was the second time in 7 years that we had won from 3-0 down as well, and I doubt if many people remember the first one either even though it was a Premiership game.  In the case of this one, even though there was some journalistic hyperbole there isn't a source about the game that's less than 7 years old, one of those only rates it as #38 in the "50 greatest FA cup games", and even the list of "great FA Cup comebacks" only rates it as #6.   Whilst it was an eye-catching game, we simply can't create articles for anything that catches a few headlines at the time. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect, BK, if it had only had headlines at the time, I wouldn't have made the article. I only decided to put the article up because I felt that the sources I found were of sufficiently long time after the game to label it notable. Yes, the sources I have listed are several years old, but at the same time they date from multiple years after the game. In fact, several of them date to attempts by newspapers to tabulate the greatest games of the last decade, so what is to say that at least one or two of them will not do another "greatest matches of the last 20 years" at the end of this decade, and include it again? And if that happened, would it not therefore become notable again by your logic? But Wikipedia policy states that topic are either permanently notable or permanently non-notable, so this can't be the case. This is why I say that we need to agree on what exactly constitutes match notability here first, because no-one has ever defined it and consequently everyone is just making up their own ideas and claiming that their version is more right than anyone else's (and yes, I am perfectly aware that applies to me too).


 * Oh, and just as a signing-off comment - I actually was inspired to make this article because I heard a match commentator for a TV station I don't recall specifically reference this game during an FA Cup match back at the turn of the year which I don't believe had anything to do with City. The people who are paid to talk about the game do still remember this game to this very day as a peak example of a comeback, it's just that it's generally referenced verbally, not in print. Falastur2 Talk 17:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Falastur2, as far as I've been able to determine, this was not the first time you made the article; you also created the last iteration of the article in 2010, which was deleted as a result of this AfD. Is that correct, and what has changed since then that makes it more notable? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the AfD last time shouldn't have been closed the way it was, that many admins would easily of closed it to no-consensus reached. As with every article, it's all about establishing GNG first. For single games in a season the rules aren't truly clearly defined. Every game could be tagged as historic, but what we are establishing here is how historic is the game. It's nature towards what happened on the pitch, the flow of the game, then establishing the historic context of why said game stands out. Every time Tottenham face Manchester City this game is now always mentioned on the media pack that the clubs give to the media for background context for the rivalry. This in turn is often picked up upon in game commentary, then that returns back out in news sources as Greatest comebacks. This will in turn lead people to look up the game on the internet and then what is wrong with having an encyclopaedic page for this? Govvy (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Govvy, the first time this was at AfD in 2009, the decision was to merge to the 2003-04 FA Cup article. It may not help now, because a merger has already been done, but it's clearly a reasonable suggestion to make when individual Cup matches are being considered here. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's partly why I questioned Hko's merge suggestion, there is already a bullet-point paragraph regarding the game, you can't add anything else, all the context of this article would then be lost. It's not just me questioning some of the delete arguments PeeJay is also myth'ed by suggestion of WP:NOTNEWS as a deletion rational, and simply saying delete Non-notable match here is not a good enough rational. I find that people need to provide clearly arguments for deletion. Govvy (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply The easiest way to answer your question is to link you directly to a copy of what the article looked like the last time it was deleted, so please see here, which is what I had salvaged just before the delete. It should be fairly easy to compare and contrast, but basically the old version was undersourced, the match report section genuinely was pretty much a journalist's impression of the game (complete with POV, non-neutral descriptions), it was padded with quotations from various persons recorded at the time (granted I originally left this in on the new article but it was swiftly deleted and I ultimately agreed with the action) and lacked an Aftermath section. There is pretty much no section of the article I haven't cleaned up. I think I've put in somewhere between 6-8 hours work into this article to update it from the old version, although granted much of that was related to working on the citations. Falastur2 Talk 17:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Sorry to bring you back into this, BK, but regarding your comment that there has not been a single source mention this match less than seven years old - in some of the most propitious timing I have ever witnessed, FourFourTwo have just posted another article on their website listing, and I quote, "8 (genuinely) brilliant FA Cup replays that prove they're not always chores", and this game was top of the list. Just for the record, three out of the eight games predate the Premier League era, so it's not entirely recentist either. You can read the article here. Falastur2 Talk 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge or Redirect to 2003–04 FA Cup and protect Wikipedia is not a new report. Although this match is notable, but it is unnecessary for an article because it is not a Final match. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * reply new report or news report? I really don't think a merge or redirect to the 2003-04 FA Cup article is going help, you're going to loose the context of the game as the current FA Cup article doesn't provide match reporting. It would be better directed else-where, but the amount of content on the current article is a decent size, so how and where would one merge it too? I don't mean to be rude, maybe you could rethink the outcome? Govvy (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a news report. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with this. The article is encyclopaedic in tone for the most part. The description of a match may read like a news report, but the lead and the Background and Aftermath sections are perfectly valid. I don't understand this objection. Furthermore, you acknowledge that the match is notable. If it's notable by Wikipedia standards, it should have an article. – PeeJay 13:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to say that I progressively rewrote the match section not once but three times in order to progressively neutralise the tone and make it less of a news report. Honestly I can't think how I could further describe the details of the match in order to describe the nature of the game and why it became notable without talking through it in a chronological fashion. The only other ways I can see to write about it would be to either A) try to write an analysis of the game, which is even less encyclopedic and borderline WP:OR or B) to describe the game only in broad terms, pretty much sweeping all of the descriptions of the goals into one or two sentences, which would result in an incredibly short section which completely devalued the article and ironically would risk making it seem non-notable. If you can see another way here then please do let me know and I will seriously consider it. I have to assume that this whole discussion is based on that one section, because none of the other sections are even vaguely news-like. <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Re: should this be merged? I can't support that view personally, as this article is too big to merge into the FA Cup season article without substantially unbalancing it, and requiring a massive re-write of that article too. The only way I could see merging working is by cutting out 80% of the content, to reduce it to a single section, but then I guarantee it would rapidly be deleted by other users who would argue that individual games should not be given their own paragraphs. <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will review my view later. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: it was merged before, and the resulting paragraph has stayed intact since 2009, so the above argument doesn't hold up against the evidence. A new paragraph based on today's article could be crafted to replace the one now in the season article, if desired. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't believe this match is notable enough for a standalone article. Number   5  7  13:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you kindly comment on what you believe defines a notable match? As you can see from the above, there is basically no agreement on this topic whatsoever, and most of the people voting to delete have totally different concepts of what kind of match qualifies as the minimum includeable, so I'd quite like to tease this out here. <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 19:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say a notable match is one which is the first of its kind (e.g. the first international match) or one in which some kind of record has been set. The one in question was undoubtably highly entertaining (I watched it in a bar with one of my best friends, who is a Spurs fan), but there's no way it's worthy of being turned into an encyclopedia article. Number   5  7  19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your personal interpretation, but my point is, what you have just commented is not what anyone else here has said. Literally everyone has come here with a totally different impression of what notability is defined as. In that situation, I'm not sure how an AfD can be considered valid. We're not examining this article against agreed standards, we're just scattergunning it against the random opinions of those people who actually turned up to comment. If we conducted this AfD again in 6 months' time, we would get a totally different set of opinions here. Is it not better to formulate a policy on what is considered notable before conducting AfDs? And if not, will you or anyone else who voted delete put AfDs against the many, many other articles which don't satisfy your criteria? <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 20:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd happily vote to delete any article that didn't meet the criteria I've mentioned. And turning your question on its head, would it not have been better to formulate a policy before you recreated an article that had already gone through two AfDs, neither of which had resulted in it being kept? Number   5  7  10:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'll point out that one of the two votes actually voted to merge the article, which is closer to a Keep than a Delete. Secondly, it has been more than seven years since the article was last deleted, in which time there has been a growing number of match articles appear. I carefully examined what articles had already been published on the mainspace before I did anything, and decided that the evidence was that opinion was turning in favour of allowing such content. Then, because this was not enough assurance for me, I deliberately contacted PeeJay2K3, a far more reputable Wikipedian than myself who actually voted to delete these articles in the past, and he gave me his backing saying that he believed the article was now worthy - you can see his comments supporting keeping the article in this very debate. So I did examine the value of this article quite carefully before deciding to publish it. I didn't ask for a consensus on notability first because, primarily, I became convinced that one was not needed, but secondly because I considered my voice too insignificant in the community and I'd prefer that those whose voices count for more take on the mantle. I will point out, though, that I did attempt to raise a debate on this exact topic at WP:FOOTBALL shortly before this AfD was posted, and you yourself are the only one who responded to me, so I hope you understand why I don't consider myself capable of achieving this. <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 19:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete There are a lot of sources, but they're all general game articles; this article relies heavily on the match report of the actual game. Of the 29 sources: game reports (1 15), feature article immediately after the game (2), best comeback lists (3 4 5 17 18 19 20), unrelated to direct topic notability (other game match reports, et cetera) (6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29). Per events notability, general game sources are WP:ROUTINE. The feature article after the game is nice, but the ultimate question is whether a game is notable for being consistently included in best-of history lists? I don't think WP:DEPTH is there, and it certainly wasn't a notable game in the context of the tournament. The fact it was merged or deleted twice doesn't help the article's case as it's certainly not getting more notable over time. I'd recommend a merge, but there's already a small blurb on the FA Cup 2003-04 article, and I'm not sure where else to recommend putting it. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (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.