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. MBisanztalk 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Currently does not meet
WP:LSC, and unlikely there can be a selection criteria which will is 'unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.' KJ Discuss? 19:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 07:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - who determines if a match is unusual or not? What if it features in one book but not another? etc.
GiantSnowman 07:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I was inspired by
List of unusual deaths, which doesn't rely on sources to decide whether a death is unusual or not. You'll also notice that these football matches tend to be listed on each others' "See also" section, again down to the discretion of Wikipedia editors instead of relying on sources to determine whether a match is unusual or not.
cagliost (
talk) 07:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The
list of unusual deaths usually requires a couple of good sources describing the death as unusual, strange or the like. That works well enough and the page has been acclaimed as one of Wikipedia's best.
Andrew D. (
talk) 08:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Do the articles for the listed football matches not themselves have sources describing them as unusual? "one of the strangest football matches ever"; "own-goal farce".
cagliost (
talk) 10:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete no definition of "unusual". Football matches are unusual in many ways hundreds of times a week around the planet, this is a unnecessary intersection. It's trivia. Just because a book has been published relating to the subject matter, it doesn't make it an encyclopedic topic.
The Rambling Man (
talk) 10:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
All the matches listed have their own articles, i.e. only encyclopedic, notable matches are listed.
cagliost (
talk) 14:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Not technically true, the second item listed links only to the generic
East Lancashire derby article, where it merits just five sentences --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 14:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
OK, not true that they all have individual articles, but the point still stands that they are notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. (And the rest do have individual articles.)
cagliost (
talk) 10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Barely any content and the topic is purely subjective. Plus this is definitely a
WP:OR article.
Eventhorizon51(
talk) 12:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The page was only started yesterday and so should be given time to develop per our
editing policy. I have wikified it and added more content to demonstrate the process.
Andrew D. (
talk) 18:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Nonsense list, trivia. Any match can be considered "unusual" by anyone. This list is meaningless, is utterly non-encyclopedic and worthless.
The Rambling Man (
talk) 19:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It's an uncontainable intersection. There is no definition of "unusual" unlike all the lists you have noted above. Thanks though. My !vote !stands &c.
The Rambling Man (
talk) 20:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - inherently unencyclopedic. Not really possible to clarify what "unusual" means in this context. To open to
OR.
Fenix down (
talk) 07:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, as per
List of unusual deaths, there is no need to have a 100% agreed definition of what constitutes "unsual" in this context, just reliable sources. The smaller domain should make it far less contentious. Any article is "open to
OR".
Martinevans123 (
talk) 10:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - no clear inclusion criteria; controversial and unencyclopaedic. For example, why are
The Other Final and
Battle of Bramall Lane not included? Where do we draw the line?
Spiderone 11:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
They are included now!
cagliost (
talk) 10:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - useful navigation list. The reasons given for deletion do not hold water.
cagliost (
talk) 10:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as the current contents are still questionable for their own article, best moved to an article about listed football information or something about unusual events, still questionable for its own article considering the current appearance.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:00, 25 June 2016 (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.