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 keep Ryan Postlethwaite 11:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern Munich 1 - 2 Norwich City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Single match report of a not particularly notable second round football match Stephenb (Talk) 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable etc--Pheonix15 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Changed opinion[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childzy (talk • contribs)

• CommentKeepclarifying my opinion --Dweller 09:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC) It is probably the most notable match in the history of Norwich City F.C., but the article's not in very good shape and I'm not sure of the Football notability criteria for individual matches. I'll check at the WikiProject. --Dweller 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to that, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Single_matches is somewhat helpful, but far from definitive. In the context of the history of Norwich City, this is an extraordinarily notable match, far more so than the victory over Vitesse Arnhem in the previous round, the loss to Inter Milan in the next, or even the 2nd leg of this tie (which finished 1-1). There's bags of RS available. The football guidelines seem to indicate that a match that is notable for one of its teams (the example given is the first World Cup match played by a side) may be notable. If that stands up, I opt for Keep. --Dweller 14:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB - I have requested members of the Football WikiProject to contribute to this AfD. I am happy for them to persuade me that this match is not notable. --Dweller 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at very least, merge as the template on the article page states. Unfortunately, WP Football doesn't have anything up about formatting for match articles, nor any defined notability standards. The discussion on said notability seems to be leaning towards World Cup and other international/national competition games, which this is. It was a bit of an upset, and will certainly be notable once we know what notable is in these cases. Definitely clean it up (I'll go fix the headers now), but don't delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there are a few momentous games in clubs' history that are notable, and this is one. ArtVandelay13 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into History of Norwich City F.C. then Delete. Number 57 14:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For info, "merge and Delete" is not a valid option under the GFDL, it would have to be "merge and re-direct"..... ChrisTheDude 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it just says it isn't advisable as it is confusing, but I think I phrased it in an understandable way - the detail should be mentioned in the History of NCFC article, but there is no point in having a redirect from such a title, so delete it. Number 57 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The match is not the final of a major competition like the FA Cup or the Champions League, and is therefore not notable. - PeeJay 14:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Keep - the notability of the match has been established. - PeeJay 20:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A match doesn't have to be a final to be notable - England v United States (1950), for example, is highly notable, and that was just a group stage match..... ChrisTheDude 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak can't decide yet... - unfortunately, I think while some consider this to be the "most notable" match in Norwich's history, it's subjective, the criteria for its notability are not clear, it's not like a WC, UEFA, FA Cup final, or a disaster occurred. However, the only defeat suffered by Bayern at their old ground is reasonable, but I do wonder how many other match/club combinations this could apply to. As for the merge, don't you just hate it when people slap a merge tag on and then don't bother discussing it? I'll come back to this when I've had more thought on the matter... Regardless of the decision, the aritlce definitely lacks citation... The Rambling Man 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - still concerned over subjectivity but provision of citations has helped assert notability of the match in question. More work is still required if kept as the rest of the article remains unreferenced. The Rambling Man 10:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article expansion has been performed well, and cited adequately. It's a keeper. The Rambling Man 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added some cited context and cited the main notability claim (that of the only defeat of Bayern by a British team). --Dweller 14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I probably have enough material to write a reasonable Manchester United 3-5 West Bromwich Albion article, but I'm not convinced it would be notable enough for a whole article in Wikipedia. I'm also uncomfortable with how the article is named. Although in this instance it is clear which match is being referred to, I'm worried about the eventual possibility of disambig links such as: This article is about the 0-0 draw between Rochdale and Darlington on 10 March 2007. For other 0-0 draws between these two teams, see Rochdale 0-0 Darlington (disambiguation). I'm stretching the point but you see what I mean, hopefully. --Jameboy 15:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of anyone regarding those matches as being particularly notable. There's enough material to write an article on any match, but this one carries certain claims of particular notability. --Dweller 17:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB Just for clarity, I would opt for delete if this were an article about Norwich's matches in the next or previous rounds, as they were not notable. This is perhaps the exact point Jameboy is referring to... the 0-0 Rochdale-Darlington is not notable. This is. --Dweller 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is notable only in the context of the history of NCFC: football fans without a particular interest in that club will have myriad other matches that they consider more significant. Laden with POV and opinion, it reads like a pean to the efforts of the Norwich players that night. Kevin McE 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had been invited on my talk page to reconsider. I acknowledge that there is less POV language, but it is still in essence a match report, and a match report is a work of journalism, not of encyclopaedic fact. If this stays, is every team to be invited to propose its most famous match as an article? Kevin McE 23:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to History of Norwich City F.C. - It is a notable event in the context of Norwich's history, but away from that it is not that notable (it would be a mere footnote in Bayern's history, for example). Oldelpaso 18:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my response to Thin Arthur, below. --Dweller 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep having weighed this up, I believe this match is significant to the history of Norwich. Rather than merge with History of Norwich City F.C. I believe this should be a sub-page as the article is already very long and there is enough significance for this article to stand alone. Englishrose 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while this was a fine result for Norwich City, individual matches at this stage of a competition aren't notable enough. A mention in the Norwich City article, fine. A mention in the 1993-94 UEFA Cup article, fine. An individual article - no. - fchd 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or alternatively Merge to History of Norwich City F.C.. The match itself is not notable enough to deserve its own article, and it is much better to cover the event into the club's history article. --Angelo 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per everyone. It's the most notable match in Norwich's history. Porterjoh 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Porterjoh changed his mind, see below. --Dweller 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a notable game in both clubs' history. Nothing above convinces me that there is a good reason to delete it. TerriersFan 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to wherever. I don't think individual matches are particularly notable unless it's a tournament final. Thin Arthur 05:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That can't be true. There are any number of matches from history that weren't finals that are massively notable, for a multiplicity of reasons. What about Scotland's victory at Wembley against the 66 World Cup Winners? Hillsborough. Belo Horizonte, 1950. The Hand of God match. etc etc etc. The Scotland match is a good example... massively notable in Scottish history, a mere footnote in English, Oldelpaso. --Dweller 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging is only meant for when a lack of sources means that a decent length article can't be written. This article is already a decent length. If you think the match is non-notable, you should vote delete. Epbr123 17:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable match. Epbr123 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to History of Norwich City F.C. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NB Comment Terriersfan and I have substantially enhanced the article of late. Review of the article by those who've already expressed an opinion would be appreciated. --Dweller 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've changed my mind. It's notable enough to stick and it's a superb article Porterjoh 17:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have added further sources to underscore notability and, with others, cleaned it up and restructured. TerriersFan 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has been been made into a good article with plenty of reliable sources demonstrating the notability of the match. While I would generally believe individual matches should not be notable, where strong evidence of notability can be shown they should be fine as has been done in this case. Davewild 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Has dramatically improved since my first vote. I still don't think it's very notable though--Pheonix15 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well I'm convinced, it has turned out as a very good and well referenced article and im sure with continued work in the future it will be fine, not 100% sure on notability but who are we to decide, there are articles on much less notable things than this. Great work with all the editing --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notability is established, but I suggest it be moved to something like Bayern Munich v Norwich City (1993), as I know of no precedent for using the scoreline of a game as an article title, other than Germany 1 England 5 (2001) and Arbroath 36 Bon Accord 0, but in those instances it was the specific scoreline itself that was notable..... ChrisTheDude 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly a notable match and the article has been well researched with a good variety of respectable sources. I do, however, agree with ChrisTheDude that the article's title should be changed and his suggested alternative looks good to me. Mls11 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the consensus is to keep the article, a rename move sounds sensible and ChrisTheDude's suggestion is a good one. However, I'd float it at the article talk page first, to assess consensus. Better to debate it there than here. --Dweller 09:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a report site. Raymond Giggs 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This article however, is already more than simply a match report. Furthermore, there is consensus that articles about notable matches are encyclopedic. This AfD needs to decide if this article is about a notable topic, sourced by reliable sources. I'm sorry if you disagree with the consensus surrounding inclusion of single notable matches, but a consensus it is. --Dweller 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as I was asked to review the article from another user, let me note my anti-keep vote is motivated by a personal distaste for match articles. Wikipedia is not a report site, as the user above noted, and I don't think there's enough space for a single match that is important solely for a single football side in the whole world. We all football fans probably have a match we remember best (to me, it's obviously a 5-0 win for Palermo in the 2003-04 Sicilian derby, for instance), but I wouldn't ever start an article about it, because I feel the issue can be best covered and fits better within the club history, with no need for a separate article. --Angelo 20:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm abstaining, I have no opinion on the matter of this match or any other such articles, but please, please, if this is kept - by keep, no consensus, whatever - rename it. The title is exceedingly unhelpful in identifying the match to anyone but those who happen to know it. I can't actually think of a better title (why couldn't it have been in the Quarter finals? That'd make naming it much easier :p), but as it stands it's completely ambiguous as a general encyclopedic title. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see above for discussion of rename. --Dweller 15:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to History of Norwich City F.C., not nearly notable. Notability within one team's history is not sufficient to make it worthy of its own article, especially when the match is not even a final or part of a top-level competition. Keeping this as it stands would allow lots of single-match articles to be written, based on subjective assessments of what is notable for any one team. The article is well sourced, though, so the bulk of it should be kept, but only as part of the broader article. --Gabbec 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we are not short of server space so why does it matter how many single match reports we have? TerriersFan 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable match, article is well-written and cites numerous sources. Melsaran (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the previous suggestions, to History of Norwich City F.C. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a merge would surely unbalance the 'History' article? TerriersFan 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of this debate has centred on notability: I would raise the issue of whether what is essentially a match report is encyclopaedic? Kevin McE 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, however, one could strip out the "match report" elements and it would still be a decent stub+ article. Hence the concentration on notability. Besides, there is consensus that such articles should exist, subject to notability. --Dweller 10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there is no issue with notability - notability comes from compliance with WP:N which requires multiple sources which this article plainly has. The main objection is based on WP:IDONTLIKEMATCHREPORTS, which has yet to be agreed :-) Objections to match reports are understandable but not based in policy. However, a move to eliminate match reports, which is entirely valid, should apply to across the board to all sports. TerriersFan 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like match reports in my newspaper, but they are journalistic writing, dealing with description, perception and impression, and not encyclopaedic. To that extent, I do not see that any new policy is needed. Maybe this is not the place to raise the issue for final resolution (where might be?), but the issue is nevertheless relevant here. Kevin McE 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some further improvements to the article today, enhancing the sections explaining why this result was such a shock (and therefore notable). --Dweller 13:56, 4 September 2007 (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.