Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C.

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. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article fails both WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG Rupert1904 (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of sources to substantiate the long-term notability of this match. Not only was it the biggest away win in the Premier League for 20 years, it was also the first time a substitute had scored four goals in a match, which is a record that still stands. Anyone claiming this doesn't satisfy GNG hasn't looked hard enough for sources. Furthermore, this nomination smacks of WP:POINT, since the nominator created Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich which is now also at AfD. – PeeJay 13:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PeeJay's response. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This match is not notable. There's already been a discussion on the talk page about this very point. It's no longer the biggest away win of all time so it's not a record. Should Norwich City's away win over Arsenal on the first day of the 1992–93 season have its own article since it was the biggest away win for a time? Additionally, a player (substitute or not) scoring four goals in a single match is not notable enough to warrant an article. There have been plenty of instances of players scoring 4 goals in the Premier League. Aguero scored five goals against Newcastle in 2015, I don't see an article about that match. Berbatov scored 5 against Blackburn in 2010 and no article on that match either. And I am fine with Bayern Munich article being deleted if that's the consensus. We should have a higher level of scrutiny for assessing articles. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was a discussion about it on the article talk page 12 years ago, which I participated in, and during the intervening years, my opinion has changed. The sources are clearly there, you're just being salty about an article you created apparently being a hair's breadth away from a WP:SNOW deletion. If you think other matches are notable, by all means test the water and create the articles for them, but don't go around nominating other articles for deletion just because an article you created might get rightfully deleted. – Pee Jay 14:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't care if that article is deleted if that's the consensus. It's good to create articles and learn what the notability is. This article too has zero notability. It's not the record away win in the league and a player scoring a hat-trick isn't notable either. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was of course the record away win in the league when the article was created. Is your argument that any article on a record-breaking achievement should be deleted when the record is surpassed? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Potentially. It should be discerned on a case by case basis though. This was a meaningless match that's been glorified as being noteworthy for having held a league record for a period of time. It doesn't hold the record anymore so why does it exist? There's nothing noteworthy left to this match. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that it broke a record at the time should be reason enough to keep it. The fact that it held the record for 20 years makes the case even stronger. But the records are incidental to the fact that the match itself does continue to get talked about more than 99 percent of all the other matches in Premier League history, as proven by the sources, hence notability is satisfied. – Pee Jay 16:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The match rarely gets brought up and to suggest it's in the top 1% of talked about matches in PL history is ludicrous and very biased towards United history. And your two sources from the article (that aren't from 1999) that suggests that the match gets talked about regularly are both dead links. But it looks like one was from the Mirror (in 2011 so very outdated now) and listed ten of the highest scoring games in Premier League history at the time (I would imagine most of those matches do not have their own article) and the other link was seemingly a blog post article about the 10th anniversary of the match. Since neither of those links work, those sources don't satisfy anything and so again this is match is not notable. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you serious? There are 380 matches every single season (more in the early years), and we're now in the Premier League's 30th season. To suggest this match isn't in the top 1% of most-talked-about matches is the more ludicrous statement. – Pee Jay 19:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not brought up regularly and the sources you used to lend credence to this claim are dead links. I just did a few google searches for best Premier League matches of all time, most memorable PL matches of all time, best PL matches of the 1990s, etc. and in all the articles, this match wasn't brought up once. So if simply an article listing matches is what you think makes a match notable, then again it doesn't meet the criteria. BBC, Bleacher Report, Four Four Two, 1Sports1, SportMob, Football Whispers, What Culture, The Football Faithful, Bleacher Report 2, etc. I could go on and provide more working links as examples of many mores matches that are talked about more regularly. It's a great win for United for sure and a memorable day for Ole when he looks back at his playing career but it's not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because this match isn't brought up as one of the best of all time doesn't mean it isn't notable. – Pee Jay 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:LASTING --17:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. Maybe Ole should have put himself on last Sunday? Anyway, to contradict the unsigned comment immediately above, this match does not meet WP:LASTING in any way. It was a routine league fixture between the best and worst teams in the PL at the time. Given the respective qualities of the two teams, this one is much less notable than Man U's 8–2 win over Arsenal which at least had the merit of matching two good teams, albeit one was not so good on the day. As a routine league fixture, the 1999 match wasn't a cup final or a title decider so it had no significant effect on football at the time and has no historical value. The score per se is WP:TRIVIA and the article fails NEVENT and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The score is not trivia. It's not just a case of one team scoring a kinda high number of goals, it was the record away win in the history of the Premier League at the time and held that record for 20 years. – Pee Jay 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::The score is statistical and if that is the only rationale for the article it breaches WP:NOSTATS. I do not oppose Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord because a world record score was achieved, but all other matches must have some importance beyond the routine. This match wasn't a cup final and, involving as it did the top and bottom teams in 1999, it was as far from being a title decider as it is possible to be. It fails NEVENT and GNG. The fact that nine goals were scored is WP:TRIVIA in terms of that season and football history. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this is a POINTy nomination, but that aside, there is not sufficient coverage demonstrated. Giant Snowman 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I agree with the proposed deletion of this article, I had not taken on board the circumstances around the Bayern match article and I now think that this nomination was raised to make a WP:POINT. On the basis of both procedure and principle, I am therefore withdrawing all comments I've made here. I think the nomination should be withdrawn. My apologies. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only was it the biggest away win for two decades, Solskjær's record still remains unbeaten. There was plenty of coverage so it passes GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable because of the records it broke. Meets WP:LASTING to a degree. WP:GNG is passed. Solskjaer's feat is impressive. I see no reason to delete this article, it's well-written too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has received lasting coverage due to its records.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given how easy it is to find discussion of this match in the media in the last couple of weeks - 22 years later - then GNG is easily met. Here's a recent article. Nfitz (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2021 (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.