Deletion of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004)

Comment: There are a lot of sources, but they're all general game articles; this article relies heavily on the match report of the actual game. Of the 29 sources: game reports (1 15), feature article immediately after the game (2), best comeback lists (3 4 5 17 18 19 20), unrelated to direct topic notability (other game match reports, et cetera) (6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29). Per events notability, general game sources are . The feature article after the game is nice, but the ultimate question is whether a game is notable for being consistently included in best-of history lists? I don't think  is there, and it certainly wasn't a notable game ''in the context of the tournament''. The fact it was merged or deleted twice doesn't help the article's case as it's certainly not getting more notable over time. I'd recommend a merge, but there's already a small blurb on the FA Cup 2003-04 article, and I'm not sure where else to recommend putting it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:DEPTH)

Comment: I won't go into how I believe that this is notable and is not  because as the article creator I feel it should be obvious that I believe it's suitable for inclusion. What I would like to ask those who have voted, however, is what criteria they are using to judge this article? Or to put it another way, when no-one has ever really agreed and put down in writing Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability|what is notable in an article then can this AfD be seen as a fair trial, or is it not something of a scattergun approach with everyone voting according to gut feeling and personal bias? Would a better test of public opinion not be to establish a consensus first and then come back to judge individual articles afterwards, especially since I would suspect that the majority of people who patrol the AfD debates would likely consider themselves meta:Deletionism|Deletionists and therefore this AfD is likely to produce something of an inherent bias anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: whilst this match gets a little sustained coverage as a "great comeback", this seems to me to be almost always in the company of over "great comebacks". I'm not really sure I am seeing the required level of significant, sustained coverage of this match as an event on its own to satisfy GNG and counterbalance 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)