Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool 5–0 Nottingham Forest (1988)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool 5–0 Nottingham Forest (1988)

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

At least six users have said at WT:FOOTY that they believe this article should be deleted. The main reasons in that discussion are that the sources which assert notability are directly connected to Liverpool (other than one tabloid journalist giving his opinion that it was the club's fifth greatest performance). —WFC— 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC) —WFC— 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Adam4267 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is well written and well-sourced, but in the overall scheme of things the match was not notable. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a run-of-the-mill league game, it's one of the most significant matches in LFC's history. The idea that a match has to break some sort of numerical record to be notable seems arbitrary to me. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very well-written, and indeed a model for how our match articles should be worked on. But nonetheless, it doesn't presently do enough to establish its notability above and beyond routine coverage of the sport. I'd love it if there were some external wiki for match reports that we could transwiki this to. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been their "Firest" (sic) hour. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when I was fourteen, I played the game of my life. I was on fire. Every tackle I made was timed to perfection, every pass was direct, and the highlight was basically running the entire length of the field and scoring an absolute screamer in the top right-hand corner. 10/10 if I do say so myself. But, alas, despite the quality of the performance, no reliable third-party sources covered it in any significance - just like this match. Giant Snowman 10:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dismal comparison. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe he forgot to mention it was an FA Cup match at Manchester United. Honestly Snowman, get a grip...:) ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 06:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:Run-of-the-mill#Sports and the other comments above. Forest are my least favourite team in the whole world, and while I would love to create [[Category: Nottingham Forest thrashings]], I can't see any sources that mark this game out as particularly notable. — sparklism ^hey! 10:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Weak Delete after the addition of further sources. However, despite the coverage now shown in the article (much of it reliable), I am still unconvinced that, apart from the obviously great performance from LFC, this was a match of any particular significance. Nothing was won or lost, no records were broken, and no remarkable incidents occured. — sparklism ^hey! 15:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no justification for this match being notable. It did not decide a league title (like Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal), set a record (e.g. Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord), nor was it a big shock (Bayern Munich v Norwich City). Number 5 7 11:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the match lives long in the memory of many Liverpool supporters, the lack of sourcing is a concern. There is little next to nothing about Nottingham Forest so the reader will find it hard to construe information; what did their manager say before and after the match, what formation did they line up, who did they miss, et al. If, going by "performance[s] is considered to be one of the best in English football history", unsourced -- then that alone would just set a precedent. I mean, I could in theory write an article on Arsenal beating Portsmouth 5–1 in the FA Cup and how it was in line with the "magnificently fluid Ajax of the early 70s". But the match had little of any significance (only to those who were actually at Fratton Park that night), partly because Arsenal were knocked out the following round. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that the Daily Mail and Guardian sources confer notability. Also, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the Liverpool and LFCHistory sites because they are not independent; we have various football articles that extensively refer to official club sites. Finally, Henry Winter is a respected journalist, and his article should be given some weight. Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the second point, I accept that you probably do not intend this as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. But there is a big difference between using club-related sources to cite facts, (which subject to meeting WP:SELFPUB is common even in featured articles), and using them to assert notability. —WFC— 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but there has to be a reasonableness to any arguments for deletion, based on the reality of many other football articles, and I think it is simplistic to simply dismiss these sources. In any case, Art has now added a number of other sources, and I would ask anyone who voted delete to reassess their view in the light of these sources. I believe the article meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even the GNG is not a guarantee of being kept (as technically just about any Premier League match meets the letter of the GNG), but I agree that a much stronger case is now being made. I would agree with this call for those who have looked at the article to look again. I would say I have gone from delete to leaning delete. My gut feeling is that keeping on the basis of Finney's comments this would open a floodgate for people to look for quotes from famous people to justify all sorts of games – Watford 2–2 Reading in 2008 would unquestionably merit an article along those sorts of lines – but I do accept that a far stronger case for keeping has been made now compared to when I nominated. —WFC— 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added a further 7 references from media sources. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has this match shown itself to be important to the sport as a whole, not just the clubs involved? I would say probably not. – Pee Jay 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the new sources added to the article. And as Eldumpo states, Henry Winter is a respected journalist, not "one tabloid journalist" Mentoz86 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree with the arguments here, the sources don't point to a lasting historical legacy, which exists in the Arsenal and Newcastle games. NapHit (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2012 (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.