Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic v Aberdeen (6 November 2010)

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 don't see a clear decision here, so I suggest the supporters of the article work to improve it. It may be nominated again (but not by me). Krakatoa Katie 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic v Aberdeen (6 November 2010)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Admittedly I'm not terribly familiar with the Scottish Premier League, but as far as I can tell this individual football match fails WP:Sports event as it did not decide a championship, was not an "all-star" type exhibition, and has little to no coverage beyond routine coverage. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This match was a Scottish Premier League record, contributed heavily to the sacking of Mark McGhee, was a record defeat for Aberdeen and was were 'Poppygate' occured. I definitely think that those reasons make it a significant match. Adam4267 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why this match is significant:
- SPL record victory
- Aberdeen record defeat
- Contributed heavily to the sacking of Mark Mcghee
- This match could decide the title as goals count if teams are level on points, the 02-03 season was decided by one goal
- The match gained significant headlines throughout Britain and 10x the average amount for a normal Celtic match (Google search 'Celtic 9-0 aberdeen' 2.5m hits, 'celtic 2-2 inverness 27 nov' 250k hits, 'Celtic 1-3 Rangers 24 oct' 350k hits)
- This match hosted a political protest which also gained significant headlines throughout Britain ('Celtic poppy banner' 140k hits) Adam4267 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not The Sporting News. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nomination. And not just because I support Aberdeen. Swaddon1903 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the game itself is non-notable on its own. The only notable fact is that is is a home record win in the Scottish top flight, but it is not enough to establish notability for a separate article; a mention in the Scottish Premier League article as a record win is the best, and only, solution. --Angelo (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the things mentioned by Adam4267 are important, but this article is not the answer. We alreay cover all the information in appropriate articles: 1) Scottish league record: already mentioned at 2010–11_Scottish_Premier_League#Events, plenty of space for expansion if there are sufficient sources. 2) The games impact on the sacking of Mark McGhee: already mentioned Aberdeen_F.C.#Recent years (1987–present), plenty of space for more information. 3) "Poppygate", already covered fairly extensively in Green Brigade#"Poppygate" but again if there is more information available it can be added. (had edit conflict) Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no decent reason given as to why this match is notable. Giant Snowman 14:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Record win in the Scottish Premier League. Contributes to the sacking of Mark McGhee, and was Aberdeen's record defeat. Velociraptor888 20:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a match that sets a league record is notable in itself. It is also Aberdeen's record defeat. There was an article about the match and its historical context (ie Aberdeen's decline since their glory days under Alex Ferguson) in the New York Times, for goodness' sakes [1]. I think this signifies a highly unusual notability of this particular match, per "a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match)" in WP:Sports event. Also see previous afds about league record matches, ie Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could discuss whether the game was widely covered, in addition to the normal coverage any premier league game recieves - but whichever way the pendulum were to swing I think it would be fairly borderline keep or delete. However I think it is more instructive to consider the article in the light of WP:SUMMARY. We have the suitable parent article: History of Aberdeen F.C., which has this to say "Calderwood was replaced by Mark McGhee, who was sacked on 1 December 2010." Thats it! No more detail! Let's add the impact of the 9-0 defeat especially as we can reference the New York Times article. Then if the section covering the 9-0 defeat gets too big we can split it out into its own article. The History of Aberdeen F.C. article is well established, linked to in other articles and probably is easily found by readers. Let's put our effort into that article rather than starting an article which is clearly an offspring of it. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you can't have both. The policy says that you need coverage beyond the routine; a detailed report in the New York Times goes way beyond "routine" for a SPL match. You're lucky if you get a full match report for a SPL match in a London newspaper! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article definitely needs improving, but league record victories are certainly notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment small question: what if Aberdeen tomorrow loses 0-10 to some other opponent? Are you gonna delete the article because it's no longer a record loss, or what? That would make you all understand why we should not allow room for such articles... And the fact it contributed to the sacking of Aberdeen's manager is just irrelevant: if we start making an article for all games that contributed to the sacking of a football coach, then we would be flooded by tons of such articles, most of them being quite unnoticeable (I am Italian, and in my country there's even a history of football manager being sacked after losing a friendly match!) --Angelo (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP. I think the stronger claim to relevance is the fact it is a league record. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP seems a slightly strawman argument, though. Since by that reasoning, every match in history that has set a league record is notable and should have its own article. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed}

wether you like it or not their is a precedent for league record matches to have their own article Adam4267 (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm happy for 'record victories in top tiers' to be enough for establishing validity. Note once again the absence of standards for football match articles. Pretty Green (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.