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. MBisanz ^talk 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual football matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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 debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:LISTN. See Football's Strangest Matches, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 22:01, 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]

• The content all appears in our existing articles. The list is mainly a navigational aid to help people find it. This is a valid function of lists per WP:LISTPURP. And we seem to have hundreds of soccer lists which might be considered "trivial" by anyone. Try list of association football mascots; lists of nicknames in association football; list of international goals scored by Abby Wambach; list of association football families; list of hooligan firms... See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew D. (talk) 19:38, 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 - Absent clear inclusion criteria, this list is inherently original research. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not simply suggest some? e.g., as per List of unusual deaths, that the match should be described as "unusual" or similar in multiple WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 23 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. SwisterTwister talk 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.