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 redirect to UEFA_Euro_2016_qualifying_Group_G. Consensus seems to be fairly clear against keeping the article. Anything sourced with *reliable* sources can be included in brief in the redirect target. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro v Russia (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying)

[edit]

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

No evidence this match will have any lasting notability. A bog-standard qualification match that happened to have a few disgraceful incidents causing it to be abandoned - such things happen fairly regularly, and are rarely worthy of note. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for as long as article Serbia v Albania (UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying) exists. ^Ol^Ja 13:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not a very good reason for keeping. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I can see it passing WP:GNG as there has been a lot of media coverage and it is not everyday a goalkeeper has to be sent to hospital for having something burning tossed at his head. As also said above we have a similar article for an other match so I think this should also be kept. It is a fresh article so it has to be improved, but in my opinion it is notable. QED237 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it the first time such a thing has happened, and I see no article on, say, the 2005 Inter Milan v AC Milan UEFA Champions League quarter-final match - a match that was more notable anyway. Any football match could be said to pass WP:GNG, pretty much; WP:EVENT, however, isn't close to being satisfied yet. WP:TOOSOON. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - matches getting abandoned are certainly rare; that does not make it notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply. Giant Snowman 15:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the reasons given above by GiantSnowman, not notable. JMHamo (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the match is important not so much because of the flare being thrown itself but in a political context. Around 300 Serbs turned up to support Russia, which can't have gone down well with the Montenegrins. The Serbs and Russians hanged Novorossiya flags in the away sector, fans from ex-Yugoslavia are a force in the Donbass conflict.[1] Seeing as this close to the Serbia-Albania match, tensions in the ex-Yugoslav region haven't been this tense in a while Abcmaxx (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTNEWS applies here... JMHamo (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, that's a terribly unreliable source... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unreliable? Biggest supporter website around, independently published, non-blog, non-forum etc. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Supporter website" is your answer - those are very, very rarely WP:RS-compatible, and this one shows all the signs of not being reliable (fan sites for ultras are rarely going to be reliable, for starters). There is also nothing obvious in the source that verifies your claims. Size does not equal reliability - look at the Daily Mail. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters are just as entitled to their own publication as multi-billionaires, government-owned media, fashion designers, or any other bloke deciding to run a publication. Fan sites for ultras - no it's a website for ultras and the biggest one of its kind. And Daily Mail (or any other newspaper) is a reliable source under Wiki rules, however much you disagree with a publication. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.Abcmaxx (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The Daily Mail, along with many other newspapers, has been frequently discredited at RSN. It is categorically and objectively not a reliable source, and that isn't a "JUSTDONTLIKEIT" argument - in fact, if you have any familiarity with the Daily Mail, and you are calling it a reliable source, I would question your competence. TMZ has a wide circulation, is that a reliable source? No, no it isn't. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that this fan site you are praising to the high heavens is reliable - and the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that. Most supporters sites are little more than blogs without the blog name, and I see no evidence - and you have presented no evidence - that this one is any different. Large, yes. Reliable? Not a chance on any evidence I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can rubbish any media according to your rules. BBC is government owned, Vice News is for hippies, The Guardian for left-wing nuts etc. etc. As for the site I praise to high heavens: clearly other newspapers had no problem using them as a reliable source Lithuania Tribune: [2], Soccerly.com: [3], the Romananian Gazeta Sporturilor [4] and Pro Sport [5] and probably tons of other if I bothered to research properly. No media is reliable as such Abcmaxx (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you've resorted to trolling - appropriate given the date. The Soccerly source is nothing bar a video and some description of it - that's meaningless. Yes, it references ultras-tifo... because they're the copyright holders of the video. Likewise, the Lithuanian Tribune is using a picture from that website, and nothing else. To suggest that those two are evidence of ultras-tifo being reliable is ridiculous. As for the Romanian piece... translating from the Google translation, that is pure tabloid journalism, nothing more, nothing less. So, yeah; you've got 0 evidence that the website you were touting is a reliable source. Other sites using their images or videos does not mean anything, nor do referring to their data for pure tabloid rubbish about "hottest choreographers". And even if ultras-tifo were a reliable source, you still haven't shown that they gave this game in-depth, non-trivial and non-routine coverage! Good job sir! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's hard to accept defeat isn't it? How dare I mock The Guardian or the BBC, the bastions of unbiased and reliable journalism across the globe! WP:DONTLIKEIT, almost WP:BLUDGEON if it weren't for the fact you disguise your arguments by rubbishing any source you simply don't read on the regular or have some sort of grudge against, bastardising policies to fit in with your own opinions. Pure tabloid rubbish about "hottest choreographers" - ever considered they were writing about fans and the site was the best place to back their article up, or they went there for research? Some guy with two laptops probably wouldn't go as far as copyrighting their material - if they weren't judged to be a significant source, no-one would have bothered with it. Trivial, routine and non-in depth material stays in their e-mail inboxes/on the massive forum, they don't write articles for minor events (from an ultras point of view) - 90% of stuff doesn't get an article, only big fights, tifo's and significant actions get an article. Football is about all fans, not just Sky Sports, MOTD pundits, and "official supporters" only. But I'm not sure why I'm bothering to argue because you don't like and therefore it's definitely rubbish. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"How dare you mock" - it is behaviour like this that is little short of trolling. Nothing to do with you "mocking" particular sources, more that you appear more and more to fail WP:CIR. When trying to prove a site is reliable, you cited three articles where they were used as a source - two of those were file attributions, and thus the attribution is meaningless. That's nothing to do with not liking it, that's a fact - and your claims about copyrighting are pretty dubious at best. Also, 90% of stuff doesn't get an article? Why do I see random amateur matches with full reports on that site then? There is 0 evidence that site is reliable, at all, and as someone who is proposing a novel site as a reliable source, you must be able to prove that it is at least vaguely reliable. You've not done so, you've not attempted to do so in a serious manner, and you seem incapable of doing so. And the kicker is that even if the site is reliable, it still didn't provide significant coverage on this match, or if it did, you didn't show any evidence of that - meaning that your entire argument has been pointless anyway! Good job! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you just don't like the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there and you have refused to take on board any argument that you disagree with. So I'm not going to repeat myself because it's like talking to a brick wall. But just to avoid embarrassment: random amateur matches with full reports on that site then - the level of football a team plays is completely irrelevant to the strength of a club's ultras/fan scene e.g. RB Salzburg, a title winning team, their "fans" would never be on there as they are considered incredibly weak/non-existent in supporter culture whereas Carshalton Athletic might well do if they do something notable enough.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly not liking the evidence - there is simply no way on earth the first two links show any reliability of this site at all, and you seem incapable of acknowledging that. Intellectual property and copyright laws, whichever happen to be applicable, mean they have to attribute the source of the files. So maybe yes, they're a reliable source for photos and videos, who knows? But there's no evidence of them being reliable for journalistic pieces (you presented one piece of dubious quality), and there is no evidence they gave this match significant coverage in a non-routine way, and you've not even remotely attempted to show that. All you did was post up a random page of photos, nothing more, nothing less. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Matches are abandoned due to crowd trouble all the time; I fail to see why this is particularly notable. Same goes for the Serbia–Albania article. Number 5 7 16:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The game was interesting, sure, but it hasn't had anywhere near enough coverage to justify creating an article about it. – Pee Jay 17:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or, at least, Redir) - Differently from Serbia-Albania (IMHO), for its diplomatic and political issues etc, this is a normal match abandoned after a flare to the GK and a brawl between players. This happens in football, and IMHO fails notability. At least could be redirected to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group G#Matches. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's first article I created and anyway I'll improve it. Yeah, at this time there are no refs in this page but the facts you here suggested will be included to the article. And, moreover, article of match between Serbia and Albania wasn't nominated to deletion and now it's the C-class article. EKBCitizen (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the match got abandoned doesn't mean it's notable. WP:NOTNEWS. – Michael (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group G. I think Dэя-Бøяg described it best: whereas there is a great deal of context supporting the Serbia-Albania article, this Montenegro-Russia event appears to lack it. To address A short paragraph on the Group G page describing the disturbances will adequately capture all of the salient content. Aspirex (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group G. Good idea. -Koppapa (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a good idea. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source [6] Abcmaxx (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence of likely enduring notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2015 (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.