Deletion of 2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season/FA Cup Fourth round replay

Comment: because the case for violating  is an ass-backwards piece of reasoning.  The comeback game is notable because people frequently mention this game whenever another comeback occurs.  The repeated occurrence, almost every few months, of "lists of best comebacks" featuring this game that get posted on the web in both blog and news media articles simply serves as a testament to this game's intrinsic notability in the collective consciousness.  Additionally, the elephant on this page that no one appears willing to address is ''TerriersFan's'' calling out of the paranoid mindset that clings to the fallacy that keeping such an article will somehow automatically open the flood gates for thousands of other similar articles to be generated that might possibly cause Wikipedia to become overwhelmed by such articles in the future.  Reality, however, does not support such a negative viewpoint.  What is much more likely to happen in these situations is that the editor(s) who created the deleted article(s) simply won't wish to fruitlessly waste any more of their productive time creating future Wikipedia articles. The consequence is always more likely to be a loss of good editors rather than an over-abundance of similar articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: quite clearly meets . This match has plenty of reliable sources that address the subject "directly and in detail". In addition, as I said in the first AfD "I quote from the Guardian "This may well be as great a comeback as English football has ever known" and Kevin Keegan "They'll talk about this game long after we're dead and gone"". The first AfD closed as merge not delete. However, the merged material is not there now so a standalone article now seems the best way to go
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Readers of this discussion should note well that according to the guidance of , events that are not normally considered to be noteworthy in of themselves can still merit their own articles because ''"events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else."''  Thus, for instance, none of us here are going to dispute that the upcoming Stoke City-Man. City FA Cup final game will ultimately merit its own article, even if the game is a dour and totally forgettable affair, because FA Cup finals are consensually considered to be "significant and notable soccer events".  What  effectively states is that if City win the FA Cup then the semi-final game against Man. United will possibly merit its own article too, because that game can be considered to be a precedent or catalyst for City reaching the final and lifting the cup
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EFFECT||WP:EFFECT)

Comment: as nominator and per . None of the lengthy comments above address that fundamental point. Nothing has substantially changed to make this game more or less notable since the previous discussions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: sorry, but in all the words above there has yet to be a single, valid, policy-based argument for deletion. Editors saying "this game is not notable" is fine as an expression of their view but notability is not a reflection of personal views but is a question of whether the guideline  is met; it is not a valid deletion argument. This guideline states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ...". It then defines terms including, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail,". This match clearly meets this requirement and no-one has argued to the contrary. The fact that many other matches without articles may meet this guideline is not relevant - we are dealing only with this match and this article. The only semblance of a policy basis for deletion is the badly worded  guideline. That guideline is clearly intended to exclude events that get coverage at the time but are not referred to later (or else it would exclude all major events). This is not the case here; this match has been referred to years later in reliable sources. Take The Independent as just one example. On 23 January 2009, this match was selected as one of "The ten best FA Cup comebacks", http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/the-ten-best-fa-cup-comebacks-1513035.html?action=Gallery&ino=6 here. I am afraid that most delete views are of the "I don't like it" nature. Sadly that is not a ground for deletion otherwise I could argue for the deletion of the thousands of articles on porn, cd listings, transient pop singers, episodes of soaps etc that I don't like :-). Like it or not (and I acknowledge that many don't like it) what we have here is an article that clearly meets the inclusion criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Since I never saw the original versions, I'd be hard pressed to know what significant additions were made to the article to make it "more notable". But from what I see so far, I'd have to go with the fact that this is . And to MLitH, it would do you good to simplify your arguments. No one wants to read massive essays on why you think this is notable, or for any counter-arguments here or elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Perhaps you should have read Talk:2003%E2%80%9304_Manchester_City_F.C._season/FA_Cup_Fourth_round_replay#Background|'''this''',  and  before you made your comment?  You also clearly seriously misunderstand the AfD process.  Each review discussion is a separate process because the previous AfDs were for different articles.  If deleting an article simply because "another article on this topic was also previously deleted" was a valid reason for voting that way on the current one, then it would be impossible to ever improve an article.  Prior deletion of poor articles has nothing whatsoever to do with any article currently being reviewed for AfD.  This process is also intended to prevent people with personal agendas banding together to repeatedly suppress article material that they don't personally like simply on the basis that they had previously managed to successfully "play the system" in order to reject it. Thus an argument that an article on the same topic was previously AfD-ed is quite irrelevant. It may also be indicative of an agenda
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFDEQ||WP:NPA)

Comment: No one is claiming that anything has changed WRT the notability of this game.  The match is still as highly notable as it was during the last AfD discussion.  What HAS changed this time around is that the notability of this game is much better supported in the article with RS citations (amongst other improvements).  Vote / comments such as this one (which was typical of the last AfD) no longer apply: ''"'''Delete:''' the match has not received coverage other than routine reports in the days following the game. No indication that the match is notable enough for its own article."''  is a completely bogus reference here. That guidance refers to situations such as someone creating a Wikipedia article about, say, a game between Wolves and West Ham in the Premier League just because all the news media that regularly provide reportage on Premier League games covered that one too (which they would as a matter of course).  This match is notable because of how it is regarded in the consciousness of football fans, not because over two dozen RS references have been cited for it. The cited sources serve testament to the game's obvious notability; no one is claiming the game is considered notable merely because citations exist.  Your reasoning is completely backwards on this issue
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)