Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg

Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "There are not enough third party sources to verify the historical significance of this match. This is also extremely likely to end up being loaded with POV." Reason given for removing PROD was "the "no historical significance" argument carries little weight, speaking from experience at AfD". The fact is that the only third party sources exist because the match happened yesterday, and there are no sources to indicate that, unlike the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final, this match will be historically significant in 50 years. – PeeJay 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 13:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I said in removing the prod, while we like to pretend Wikipedia is not a news service, the basic fact is that there are plenty of articles that have no "historical significance". If we restricted ourselves to articles about topics with "historical significance", you'd have around 300,000 articles at the most. Hell, one could argue that the 2002 Champions League final had "no historical significance". As it stands, this match is notable under the classic definition, if more for the controversy than the actual match, so it really should be kept. Additionally, the possible implications on Drogba's career could actually give this the elusive "historical significance". Sceptre (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between this match and the 2002 final, though, is that people will always remember finals. There is nothing particularly significant about this semi-final. – PeeJay 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd daresay more people would remember the England v Argentina 1986 World Cup quarter-final than the 1986 World Cup final. There is no "finals=notable, anything else isn't" brightline, so don't pretend there is. Sceptre (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Granted the 'hand of God' was significant but where was the hand of God moment in this game? If this one is significant then at what point will wikipedia be having an article on every game played? Certainly there are plenty of fans out there that want to write about this stuff. May be that is what wikipedia is really about and how it will evolve in the future? David D. (Talk) 15:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seeing as you're asking, everything after the fourth penalty was turned down. That's what made the match more notable than Man U vs. Arsenal, first leg. Sceptre (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no actually evidence of that other than your personal view. I highly doubt that this has any historical significance and will likely be forgotten by the end of the season like all the other hundreds of similar incidents that happen every season. --neon white talk 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this match is no more notable than any other European Cup semi final through the ages, I don't see the reason why it should be singled out for a article. chandler ··· 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this match isn't significant; finals of the tournament are. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Historically significant" is not the baseline for inclusion. "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is. Sceptre (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only secondary sources that currently exist are only there to report that the match happened, not that anything in the match was important. – PeeJay 13:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry? Not that a player roared an expletive down a television camera which was broadcasting around Europe after the match? I really must try to find a better newspaper and television channel if they're both telling me such sickening lies... obviously that isn't notable enough in itself but I think there is more than a suggestion that something went badly wrong in this match as I've never heard of such behaviour before. I don't believe this happens in every game but then again maybe I'm not paying attention to enough sports. Either way if Battle of Bramall Lane is considered notable for its lack of players I don't see much difference. --candle•wicke 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per chandler and GiantSnowman. -- Alexf(talk) 13:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it was a very important match with clear mistakes by the refree; after the match there was also many protests. I think we should keep it.--Andrea 93 (msg) 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we had an article for every match that had mistakes by the referee, we would have thousands being created every day. Not a valid reason for inclusion. – PeeJay 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been many matches with, what some may call clear mistakes, with protests. For example the Liverpool Chelsea match in 2005, the South Korea - Italy and South Korea - Spain matches in the 2002 World Cup. There are MAAAANY matches with mistakes without articles. chandler ··· 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is a bit far to say matches like this take place in their thousands every day or even every year! :-O Honestly. And citing examples of other articles which may very well not exist because someone hasn't gotten gotten round to creating them yet?! Baffling. --candle•wicke 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete frankly, you can get enough news sources nowadays for every single match in the CL, Premier League and Football League, a large proportion of which feature bad refereeing decisions. This is definitely where the following sentence of WP:N comes in: "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. – Toon(talk) 13:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But nobody said it was a guarantee. That is a matter of opinion. And POV is ill-advised. --candle•wicke 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This match is not significant enough to warrant its own entry. As Toon05 says, every single top flight game in Europe gets a great deal of news coverage so a line has to be drawn. The repercussions may, however, be suitable for inclusion on pages such as Didier Drogba, etc. Dancarney (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article creator has now tagged the article with {{db-g7}}. This probably is just a case of him throwing his toys out of the pram, as this could have been a very helpful exercise in establishing some notability guidelines for football matches, but never mind. Bye bye, article. – PeeJay 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That comment leaves me with very bad image of you. "Bye bye article"?! It's almost like you're desperate to have it deleted for some personal reason! Is it any wonder I myself would become "awfully defensive" when met with that attitude? --candle•wicke 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel if these types of games are deserving of their own article. What are the long term goals of wikipedia, especially with regard to the use of the word "encyclopedia" and "knowledge". I don't see how these types of articles are related to either word? David D. (Talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've declined the speedy on this, as someone else spoke for keeping. DGG (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The match is notable not due to the match, but the unsatisfied performance of Øvrebø, the referee. His performance made Drogba speak foul language to the camera, which is also notable. Raymond Giggs 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a personal point of view and not something we judge notability on. --neon white talk 20:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historically significance is not an inclusion standard. This a high profile game with plenty of sources. And, just so it's clear, the fact that information is available elsewhere is also not a deletion criteria. I came here looking for info on the game (because of coverage in mainstream press), and I found it. Why is there any interest in deleting reliably sourced information on a high profile event? RxS (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both you you and KyleRGiggs, there are so many matches with bad referees or players embarrassing themselfs, see Euro 2000 Semi final between France and Portugal, the World Cup 2002 round of 16 and quarter finals involving South Korea, World Cup 2006 round of 16 between Italy and Australia (the last three involving Hiddink for some coincidence). We have a old semi final in the European Cup 1965 between Inter and Liverpool were the ref was accused of fixing the match in favour of Inter. We have other controversial matches, Austrlia - West Germany in 82, none of these have articles to my knowledge... these are just a few matches that come into my head. I don't see the need to create articles for all semifinals of the European Cup, details can be added in the knockout stage description. chandler ··· 16:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that other articles don't exist isn't really relevant. Lot's of articles don't exist that would meet our standards. Wikipedia is still growing. I know deleting things is easier, but if you see an article that doesn't exist, write it. Don't try and get others like it deleted. RxS (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's my point. Moveover, the naming of the article MUST be changed if the article is keep. Semi-final is not the point to remain, but the match itself. Raymond Giggs 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFF - need I say more? Well some people will still moan, we need to be judging this on the merits of this article alone, not on the merits of other articles. On its own, this article stands up well. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Raymond Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't care about the article any more. I was going to add a lot of information about the match and the aftermath, but I don't feel motivated to do it any more. Sceptre (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, as I said, the semi-final term is not the point, but the match. Only final match is notable by term of round name. This semi-final series is notable for the match itself. Your contribution is in good intention. Don't depressed. :) Raymond Giggs 17:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Semi-final" was in the name just as a disambiguator. Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: although I may have been a bit snippy about this AfD, I would like some help in writing the article: I do better writing about the reaction to events than writing about the events themselves. Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ridiculous Article. Not notable at all. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete wikipedia is not the news, it isnt the sports pages either. No evidence that this will have any lasting significance and will likely be forgotten fast. To quaote policy "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Anything useful can go in UEFA Champions League 2008–09. --neon white talk 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. About other comments: bad performances from referees happen everyday, even in the top flight, and it's nothing new; speaking foul language to a camera is not that original, actually. Of course, feel free to mention the controversy into the UEFA Champions League 2008–09 article, but a stand-alone article makes no sense. --Angelo (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to know why this is not appropriate for an article when Battle of Bramall Lane is 86.26.220.216 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you actually read Battle of Bramall Lane? That article exists because it cites an example of a match being abandoned because a team did not have enough players left on the pitch. – PeeJay 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahem! What's that? "Cites an example"? Not even a record breaking example? Considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster cites an actual record-breaking example in a different sport, I am quite concerned about your application of a different rationale in one deletion discussion and your complete dismissal of it in another. Considering the experience Sceptre and myself have between us I should think you would know better than to be making such an error. --candle•wicke 02:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have read Battle of Bramall Lane and am extremely familiar with the events it describes. I honestly think that this match is just as notable for the incidents with players after the game etc. 86.26.220.216 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Hubschrauber729. Kosack (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:5P. This is the type of information one would expect to find in a sports almanac. -Atmoz (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. – PeeJay 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then someone should change the first pillar to reflect that. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Key words bolded. -Atmoz (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The more important word there is "elements". Also, I would not expect to find a full-length report of every single match in a sports almanac. Results and goalscorers, sure, but reports as in-depth as this should only be expected for tournament finals. – PeeJay 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder though what happens when a final is eventless and 0-0 and so on. How does one draw up an in-depth report on such a match? --candle•wicke 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the article is to be kept, then it should be renamed to something like Chelsea F.C. v FC Barcelona (2009); the existing naming implies that all CL semi-final second legs are inherently notable, which I don't think they are. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To be perfectly honest, 2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster is at least as notable (if not more so) as this but User:PeeJay2K3 has also nominated it for deletion. Why that match was even nominated for ITN on the Main Page until it got the deletion nod. I'm not sure if this would have made it to ITN though. But if records and events such as those described in the rugby union can be nom'd for deletion yet a football match like the Battle of Bramall Lane is noted for being abandoned... well I'm not sure what conclusion to come to on this particular match. I cannot possibly vote deletion as I cannot make sense of the relevance of the three articles, of why two obviously eventful matches (and one record-breaking match in the case of the rugby) can be nom'd for deletion and one record-breaking football match can be deemed notable... I find it all a bit baffling to be honest. --candle•wicke 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think we need articles on single champions league games other then the final. EA210269 (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am puzzled though as to how a final in which nothing may well happen (and I'm sure there are countless examples) could be considered always notable but an eventful semi-final is not in all cases no matter what... --candle•wicke 02:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point being, that the winner of an eventful group- or knock-out stage game still gets nothing but a move on to the next stage while the winner of a boring final is still the champions league winner. Boring or exciting as guidelines for notability or non-notability are difficult to implement. EA210269 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as, quite frankly at this stage, I'm finding the delete arguments silly to put it mildly. The day we start deleting articles because a user thinks they're "ridiculous" will be the day I won't bother creating any more. --candle•wicke 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly urge you to read WP:POINT. – PeeJay 02:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting I'm stressed? And that stress is contributing to the fact that I've opted to give my opinion of a keep in an article which you seem to have a disturbing attitude towards? Bye bye article? Indeed. I'm not stressed actually. Would you rather I go back to my own discussion as I would probably find that one more stressful? I'm afraid I've lost track of your professional agenda. --candle•wicke 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge individual games into whatever larger unit fits the sport. It's not a matter of interest--I would much rather read about even European football than soap opera, and I think so would any rational person. It's not a matter of detailed coverage--I can see even a more detailed section than this. I think it's excessive fragmentation. We have to decide what we want to do, and I hope we do not want to do this. What matters its that we give the individual games of a season full coverage, proportional to their interest and importance. (If anyone asks, I'd be glad to do similar merges with soap opera also, if we could keep the full information. I know we will here, so I'm not worried about that.) DGG (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Covering a single football game is primarily the realm of sports journalism, not encyclopedias. (NOTNEWS) There were some issues with the referee missing things, which is big news in Norway since it was one of the Norwgian top referees, but referees missing penalties is a common if unfortunate occurence. Merging with the tournament may be possible, but a full report on a single game will probably not belong. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, I believe that if Chelsea had proceeded to win this game, Øvrebø would have been hammered up and down by the Catalonian press for the red card he gave. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This match may be making a few headlines at the moment, but is it really historically significant? So the referee made a couple of bad decisions - that happens week in week out at every level of the sport. If we started including every match that involved a bit of controversy, we'd probably end up with countless editing hours lost in pointless POV arguments. If there was something noteworthy or record-breaking about the match (such as the Battle of Bramall Lane and the Battle of Nuremberg) this would be worth keeping, but at the end of the day this is just a couple of questionable refereeing decisions followed by some players throwing their toys out of the pram. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hardly a ground-breaking match in football history, just having a lousy referee does not make a match notable. And the argument that there are multiple reliable sources is a bit specious as, as pointed out, every single match at a professional level in Western Europe gets multiple reliable news sources. I imagine if I attempted to create Rochdale F.C. vs Gillingham F.C., 2009 Football League Two play-offs semi-final, first leg, it would get laughed off Wikipedia, but it's had in-depth coverage in The Times, ESPN, Yahoo Eurosport, The Manchester Evening News, etc etc.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS & WP:RECENTISM. Badgernet  ₪  09:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bettia and Badgernet. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are plenty of forums available to debate the match. The article is being loaded with opinion, and Wikipedia is about reporting facts. Nobody is ever really going to agree about the content of the match, and if people want to argue, then there are other forums available to do so. None of the other games have their own page, I do not see why this game would merit one. If people want an in depth match report, I suggest uefa.com.
  • Delete What's significant? The fact that the ref was wrong 4-6 times? That's just bunch of opinions. And unless those who want to keep the article make it interesting and detailed, it has a very poor quality. 2002 final article is also debatable. --Arad (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind. I rather not vote. --Arad (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koos (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Delete Ok i have choose merge or delte for a few reasons. The article itself is not notable neough to be a article in it own right so should be deleted. However the points raised about the match itself ar notable so should be merged into something else, i am assumign there is a champions leage 2008-2009 article and that would be the best place for it, else i think the article should be deleted. Just to through in another reason for deletion, Rangers vs Celtic ie the Old firm matches, have ove rthe years have countless countvisoul decision made about them leading to far worse that a player swearing on camera ie leading to riots within glasgow, however these are notable enough to get there own articles so i can not see why a few penatliy claims for chelsa and few claims for barcelona justify a article for themself, or else i could find proballly 10000 article on old firm matches in the same sitiuion.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you on that, but then where doe sthe line get drawn? A line has to be drawn and decided this is where we stop, however if the match had turned very bad and there where riots and peope killed ther ebe more arguement for it be notable. But a referee decision is not notable enough to have a single article about it, hence my suggestion merge it somewhere else.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is some inconsistancy here. Like Candlewicke, I also don't believe the Bayern-Norwich game is notable enough (and it seems it only just scraped through AfD), nor is the Munster-Leinster game - record attendances are set in every competition in every sport, but how many of those games warrant their own article? Same goes for refereeing controversies - Anders Frisk was forced to quit after a Chelsea-Barca game some years ago, but I don't think the game itself has an article here, simply because it wasn't notable. My tuppence worth - I think for a single game to get an article on Wikipedia, it should be the final (not semi-final) of a major tournament, or one in which something exceptional happened (like the Bramall Lane match). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This just came up in my discussion as a reason to delete my case. Yet another semi-final – agh! ;) and a football one at that when that discussion is about rugby union. It might be more suited to here. Italy 4–3 West Germany (1970). But seriously how is BBL notable?!:-O It has happened before at a higher level and, if I'm reading correctly, this wasn't even the Premier League? Would a second division match in another country be acceptable? And the "background" section suggests the match did not affect either club's season (presumably the game was replayed anyway though?). --candle•wicke 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, i would be consistent and suggest it (Bramall Lane match) be deleted too if it was up for AfD. But let's not get side tracked by other bad precedents. From what i have seen the significant events in this article should be in other articles, the one for the referee, for example. It could be mentioned in the article for the the tournament summary, I assume one exists? Fragmenting all these facts into smaller and smaller partitions does not help a reader see the context. Also the good use of external links and references means that readers can, if they wish to, do further research and follow up on the minute details surrounding the event. David D. (Talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never considered a good arguement. --neon white talk 23:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed the point. This was an attempt to establish some clarity and consistency on the issue at hand and not an argument for delete or keep. --candle•wicke 00:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing truly major happened in this match. Drogba's f-bomb, Ballack's tantrum, and the "poor officiating" are notable, but not significant to create a whole article on the match. John cena123 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I watched this match, it was very entertaining. It will certainly be remembered for a long time! However, it's still not notable enough for a wikipedia article. Otherwise i'd be creating Bolton Wanderers F.C. VS Leicester City F.C., 2001 Premier League match as we speak! John Sloan @ 20:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most people forget that this is no premier league match, it's the Champions League semi-final between a very storied rivalry, there was so much at stake in this match and so many controversies that it definately deserves a wiki page, there are thousands of wiki pages that are far less signifigant than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.45.31 (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really anything that is accepted as criteria for notability. --neon white talk 10:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete - Having a single article about non-final match would trigger plenty of users creating A LOT OF match article every time they think that a match has bad referee, bad decision, riots, injuries, etc. Okay this match could be significant if there are a lot of penalties for Chelsea players and the referee, but I think this information could be merged to a new section on the knockout stage page. Martin tamb (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: In the UEFA Champions League 2008–09 knockout_stage article the Quarter-finals section has about 1500 words, including about 500 words about the QF 1st leg and a further 900 words about the QF 2nd leg. Meanwhile the knockout stage article also has sections devoted to the Semi-finals and both the SF 1st leg and SF 2nd leg. Those three sections have about 140, 0 and 0 words respectively. Clearly this AfD is distracting users from further developing the most obvious home for the content in this splinter article (currently at about 280 words). This is further evidence in my mind that this article should be deleted and merged into knockout stage article. David D. (Talk) 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've partially reformulated the content in the article and included it into the semi-final article. Feel free to fix it, I am not a native English speaker so I can easily make mistakes. --Angelo (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The rightful place for coverage of this game is here, since Angelo has merged the content this article can be deleted without anything being "lost". King of the North East 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would it not have made more sense to place a merge tag on this at the beginning? --candle•wicke 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: I just viewed the merge and I have to say it looks well. Well done! :) --candle•wicke 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per WP:RECENTISM. Besides that, there is nothing particularly special about this game to justify a separate article. Usually the only notable UEFA Champions League game is the final. --Carioca (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do wish notability could be more defined though. For the sake of clarity. --candle•wicke 23:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not possible to do so as all cases are different. Cases involving recent events and whether they are likely to have lasting significance are usually decided on case by case basis based on experience and past precedent. It's impossible to define in a guideline the characteristics of what will and what will not become a significant event. These things are simple too unpredictable. --neon white talk 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the POV argument is a red-herring - cure it (sorry for the pun) by editing, not deletion. But the key point here is notability. There's nothing especially notable about this match. Both teams have played in many, many more important matches in their histories. The tournament has annually a match that is more important. And the main reason for notability, the performance of the referee, is insufficient for its own article, but should be mentioned elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, despite a few penalty appeals and dodgy refereeing decisions this game is just another Champions League game. Maybe worth noting the controversy on the Tom Henning Ovrebo's page, as long as it's referenced otherwise it'd be subjective. --Jimbo[online] 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - controversial decisions happen in high-profile football matches all the time, but that does not mean they warrant an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:35, 14 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chelsea_F.C._vs_FC_Barcelona,_2009_UEFA_Champions_League_semi-final,_second_leg&oldid=1137700469"