- 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. Some people say it fails GNG others say it passes. Many words were typed but consensus there was none. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
FA Cup semi-finals
- FA Cup semi-finals ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi Finals aren't notable. There is no trophy for reaching this stage of a cup. The article lacks goalscorers making it have less info than the specific season articles. No other Cups have a page for semifinals making this yet another example of pro English football bias. Dougal18 ( talk) 07:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - can't see any evidence that the semi-final stage of the competition (as an overall concept) is notable enough for a stand-alone article -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep - There are some unique features of FA Cup semi-finals, particularly with respect to venues and participation by lower or non-league clubs, which this list article explores. I say "weak keep" because it just about barely walks the line of passing WP:GNG in terms of sourcing. The claim of "pro English football bias" above is a ridiculous piece of bad faith by Dougal18 against the many editors who have contributed to the article over the years, by the way. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- The claim of "pro English football bias" is simply a statement of the blindingly obvious when it comes to the way that articles are treated at AfD. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Lower/non league teams making the semis (or even the final) isn't unique to the FA Cup and neither is where the semis are held. GNG doesn't entitle a subject to a article - it only presumes notablity. By that logic we can have a article with all the First Round matches on it assuming it passes GNG.--
Dougal18 (
talk) 21:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is in fact the correct logic.
SportingFlyer
talk 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- All of these individual matches meet GNG, but that could be said for any FA Cup match. For me, the question is does the overall concept of "the semi-finals of the FA Cup" meet GNG, and for me the answer is no. Your comment above suggests that you would endorse an article entitled
First round of the FA Cup, which listed every single first round match that has ever taken place (of which at a conservative estimate there would be more than 5,000), and frankly that would be utter insanity --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 09:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Assuming the First Round of the FA Cup passes GNG, it would be eligible for an article. It does not, nor do the individual matches that constitute it, as I would believe they would be
WP:ROUTINE. I also don't think the individual matches for a semifinal pass GNG. The reason why this article does as a whole is because the topic as a whole passes WP:GNG, even though it's currently a poorly sourced article. Sources like
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] The historical focus on these games as a whole clearly passes
WP:GNG, especially considering there's history with neutral venues and changes in the way the semifinals have been conducted over time.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- As I show further below, and with all due respect, SportingFlyer, you completely misunderstand the notion of independent notability. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Assuming the First Round of the FA Cup passes GNG, it would be eligible for an article. It does not, nor do the individual matches that constitute it, as I would believe they would be
WP:ROUTINE. I also don't think the individual matches for a semifinal pass GNG. The reason why this article does as a whole is because the topic as a whole passes WP:GNG, even though it's currently a poorly sourced article. Sources like
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] The historical focus on these games as a whole clearly passes
WP:GNG, especially considering there's history with neutral venues and changes in the way the semifinals have been conducted over time.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- All of these individual matches meet GNG, but that could be said for any FA Cup match. For me, the question is does the overall concept of "the semi-finals of the FA Cup" meet GNG, and for me the answer is no. Your comment above suggests that you would endorse an article entitled
First round of the FA Cup, which listed every single first round match that has ever taken place (of which at a conservative estimate there would be more than 5,000), and frankly that would be utter insanity --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 09:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- That is in fact the correct logic.
SportingFlyer
talk 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable, in my opinion. R96Skinner ( talk) 14:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep None of the delete votes above me have cited any policy apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Passes WP:GNG and the statistics presented are well documented, so it's not just a blob of numbers. SportingFlyer talk 01:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep I would call this a good reference article, it lacks the citations for GNG but that can easily be fixed, for those that say these games aren't notable need to come up with another argument, I am with SportingFlyer and point to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Govvy ( talk) 11:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly these individual games are notable, I doubt anyone would dispute that, but is the overarching concept of "the semi-finals of the FA Cup" notable, meriting combining them all into one overall article? Personally I think not -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability, certainly does not pass WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
DeleteI decided to change my mind on this article. Firstly anyone that says the topic of this article fails GNG need to stop it, of course the topic is going to pass GNG, there will be multiple sources you can collect up and add to the article. You could easily have 100 citations here. I believe this is comes under unnecessary content forking, you already have competition pages for each year and that will cover the semi finals along with club season pages which are in those semi finals. Establishing the criteria for any list needs to cover it's importance to the subject and this list on it's own I believe fails WP:LISTN. Govvy ( talk) 11:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you think it's an unnecessary fork. It's certainly not a superfluous fork. There's plenty of information on this page, including the history of the formats, the neutral venues used, or the statistics of how often clubs have reached this stage, which would not be found in the club season pages or the yearly competition pages. Users may want an overview of all semi-finals, where they've been played, or have some other reason for wanting to view the topic as a whole. Furthermore, as you've noted, it passes
WP:GNG, and it does so as a group, due to the number of articles or record sites which talk about the stage of the competition as a whole - not because the individual games do.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
SportingFlyer: I have no idea what I am doing or saying about the article, I am drawing between keeping and deleting yet again, I actually think I am wasting my time trying sometimes, my main problem is the person that nominated this article for deletion, Dougal18 has been disruptive multiple times in the past and I feel this nomination is suspicious. I'd be happier if this whole AfD was withdrawn and put forward with a different person. I do see the usefulness of the material, I just feel upset that people are saying no evidence of notability trying to delete an article which a lot of people have put effort into creating, when clearly there is a huge amount of notability to the subject matter because millions of people watch these semi-finals on TV.
Govvy (
talk) 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't been disruptive since my indefinite (and third) ban was lifted after 3 hours 32 minutes back in January after promising to be a good boy. I've created 2 pages since then and nominated a page for deletion. The page was deleted without any questioning of my past disruption. I have better things to do than maliciously AfD an article and hope people reach a consensus for deletion. The effort people put into the article has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. BTW, how many viewers did the 1888 semifinals get?--
Dougal18 (
talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Notability is not determined by the number of television viewers, but rather by the GNG: significant coverage, reliable sources, independent of the subject, of which a television show is not. This AfD frustrates me for a similar reason as you've noted: it's put forward for not meeting GNG along with an other stuff doesn't exist argument and a clear I don't like it/bias argument. No indication of a before search by the author or any of the delete votes. The reason why this is notable (along with the third/fourth place article) and not say the quarterfinals or the semifinals of a cup in another division is because they've been covered extensively as semifinals (I've listed sources above), in part because of the history of the competition, in part because neutral grounds were used showing it's an important stage in the competition: you don't get to host a home game anymore (covered in sources) [11]. It baffles me why this has legs. SportingFlyer talk 04:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't been disruptive since my indefinite (and third) ban was lifted after 3 hours 32 minutes back in January after promising to be a good boy. I've created 2 pages since then and nominated a page for deletion. The page was deleted without any questioning of my past disruption. I have better things to do than maliciously AfD an article and hope people reach a consensus for deletion. The effort people put into the article has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. BTW, how many viewers did the 1888 semifinals get?--
Dougal18 (
talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- @
SportingFlyer: I have no idea what I am doing or saying about the article, I am drawing between keeping and deleting yet again, I actually think I am wasting my time trying sometimes, my main problem is the person that nominated this article for deletion, Dougal18 has been disruptive multiple times in the past and I feel this nomination is suspicious. I'd be happier if this whole AfD was withdrawn and put forward with a different person. I do see the usefulness of the material, I just feel upset that people are saying no evidence of notability trying to delete an article which a lot of people have put effort into creating, when clearly there is a huge amount of notability to the subject matter because millions of people watch these semi-finals on TV.
Govvy (
talk) 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you think it's an unnecessary fork. It's certainly not a superfluous fork. There's plenty of information on this page, including the history of the formats, the neutral venues used, or the statistics of how often clubs have reached this stage, which would not be found in the club season pages or the yearly competition pages. Users may want an overview of all semi-finals, where they've been played, or have some other reason for wanting to view the topic as a whole. Furthermore, as you've noted, it passes
WP:GNG, and it does so as a group, due to the number of articles or record sites which talk about the stage of the competition as a whole - not because the individual games do.
SportingFlyer
talk 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 04:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, as a perfectly reasonable content fork. This article/list contains nothing but verifiable information that, in principle, could be included in FA Cup if it wasn't for the fact that it would be ridiculous bloat on an article owing to the lengthy history of the competition. I also take particular issue with a large part of the nomination rationale; providing an increased level of detail on one country's cup competition shouldn't be considered a reason to delete that one, so much as a reason to enhance the coverage of others if there are editors that are willing to put in the time. Similarly, a criticism of the fact that this article lacks goalscorer information compared to the more detailed articles is surely an argument either for the usefulness of this type of page as a navigation tool, or an argument for increased information on this page - not one for deletion. ~ mazca talk 21:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- The FA Cup article doesn't have a list of finals let alone the semis. Keeping the article in the hope other editors enhance others is no reason to keep whatsoever. By your arguments an article listing all the games of a certain round in any cup would be acceptable. The page provides less info than the specific season articles and should be deleted. If it gives the same amount of info or greater, then deletion should still take place as it just rehashes info from elsewhere in an unnecessary article. Dougal18 ( talk) 07:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep given the amount of RS that discuss this as distinct topic. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Every stage of a cup competition is "notable" but only in the strict sense of being widely discussed and reported in the media when it happens. Some great games even get their own special, privileged place in history. But "semi finals" as an independently notable notion?! Someone's idea of a joke perhaps. Alternatively, someone confuses talk about the weather being cloudy over the channel during the Allies' landing in France in WWII as proof of "cloudy weather" being a notable subject! - The Gnome ( talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this is yet another
WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. There's coverage even when it doesn't happen, it's a notable event for many clubs as shown above and the neutral site lends itself to notability and coverage as well.
[12]
SportingFlyer
talk 02:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- As it happens, I'm a long-time football fan and watch British football quite closely. :-) So, any argument about me " not liking" any stage of Cup competitions, such as F.A Cup semi-finals (and Wikipedia articles about 'em), is a non-starter. Can't raise a deader argument than that.
- Let me amplify again the substance of my input: I never stated that semi-final games are not important or notable, or that they're not widely reported, etc. The point is that there is no separate and independent notability of semi finals as a category that would merit an article on them! See, there's a lot of confusion about independent notability going round in Wikipedia. For instance, people read a bunch of front-page newspaper articles about robberies, where the robber reaches into his back pocket to draw out a weapon, and they start thinking, "Hey! Back pockets are notable!"
No, they're not. -
The Gnome (
talk) 18:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I still disagree with you. From fluff articles like
[13] to feature articles in international papers like
[14] to people complaining about the fact they're held at Wembley like
[15] to the fact there was a third-fourth place game for a few years (which has its own article), there's no reason why the semi-finals aren't independently notable on their own. This isn't an article about the FA Cup where we say, "let's have an article about semifinals!" Who played in them and where they played isn't "bloat" for a moment, considering this is the most important domestic knockout cup in the world.
SportingFlyer
talk 21:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Someone above justified a "keep" opinion on the grounds that semi-finals get exposure when smaller clubs defeat bigger ones. I'd claim that so-called "giant killings" occur more often in earlier rounds of the F.A. Cup competition historically than in later ones, such as the final or the semi-finals. So, on the basis of that viewpoint and yours, what about a Wikipedia article about the F.A. Cup 6th Round Stage? Or even the 5th Round?
Colchester became front page news in England when they
knocked out
Leeds in the 5th round in 1971. People still talk about it. But the notoriety (and the notability) concerns that game and the games per se and the Cup competition as such; not some "semi final" category. The competition does not have a "play off" period, like some sports leagues have, in which case we would have a separate article. -
The Gnome (
talk) 05:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is a straw man, unfortunately. The semifinals are notable because of sources that talk about the semifinals as a distinct category, whether it be where they should be held to stattos keeping records
[16]. My viewpoint does not extend to the quarterfinal rounds or below since they are not notable as a category, though I did make the point earlier if those rounds were somehow notable through the sources for whatever reason, I would vote to keep them. Notable underdog runs to the quarterfinals may be a notable category for another list.
SportingFlyer
talk 06:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, we disagree - but what exactly was the argument I falsely claimed was yours and then argued against it? Claiming the other side engages in straw man argumentation is serious. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is a straw man, unfortunately. The semifinals are notable because of sources that talk about the semifinals as a distinct category, whether it be where they should be held to stattos keeping records
[16]. My viewpoint does not extend to the quarterfinal rounds or below since they are not notable as a category, though I did make the point earlier if those rounds were somehow notable through the sources for whatever reason, I would vote to keep them. Notable underdog runs to the quarterfinals may be a notable category for another list.
SportingFlyer
talk 06:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Someone above justified a "keep" opinion on the grounds that semi-finals get exposure when smaller clubs defeat bigger ones. I'd claim that so-called "giant killings" occur more often in earlier rounds of the F.A. Cup competition historically than in later ones, such as the final or the semi-finals. So, on the basis of that viewpoint and yours, what about a Wikipedia article about the F.A. Cup 6th Round Stage? Or even the 5th Round?
Colchester became front page news in England when they
knocked out
Leeds in the 5th round in 1971. People still talk about it. But the notoriety (and the notability) concerns that game and the games per se and the Cup competition as such; not some "semi final" category. The competition does not have a "play off" period, like some sports leagues have, in which case we would have a separate article. -
The Gnome (
talk) 05:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I still disagree with you. From fluff articles like
[13] to feature articles in international papers like
[14] to people complaining about the fact they're held at Wembley like
[15] to the fact there was a third-fourth place game for a few years (which has its own article), there's no reason why the semi-finals aren't independently notable on their own. This isn't an article about the FA Cup where we say, "let's have an article about semifinals!" Who played in them and where they played isn't "bloat" for a moment, considering this is the most important domestic knockout cup in the world.
SportingFlyer
talk 21:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this is yet another
WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. There's coverage even when it doesn't happen, it's a notable event for many clubs as shown above and the neutral site lends itself to notability and coverage as well.
[12]
SportingFlyer
talk 02:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm with the Gnome, and frankly, the notion that there are "unique" aspects about semi-finals is complete nonsense. The way to handle "ridiculous bloat" isn't to create kneejerk content forks. It's to cut the bloat. Nha Trang Allons! 17:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment this is a spin-off article of FA Cup, and as noted, there is more than enough WP:MILL coverage to meet the letter of GNG. I think this needs to be handled by "common sense", rather than by weighing rules that give conflicting results. Should the "List of FA Cup semi-finals" table be on Wikipedia in any form? If so, this article has to exist. If not, the remaining content here should probably be merged to an article on the structure of the FA Cup in general. I'm not entirely sure what "5th round" means here, and it's not entirely clear where that would be explained beyond the per-year articles. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: as per WP:GNG; should be renamed List of FA Cup semi-finals in my view, however. Nomination appears to be more WP:TRIGGERED more than anything.
- 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.