Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Texas vs. Oklahoma State football game

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Texas vs. Oklahoma State football game

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

The article's claim of significance was that the game was the largest 4th-quarter comeback in Texas football history. This does not strike me as significant enough to warrant its own article. The sources are all WP:ROUTINE. Also, the article's creator states it was created to reduce the size of another article. The necessity of that is debatable; I'd say this article is an unnecessary fork, and its contents can easily be summarized on the 2007 Texas football article. Lizard (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mediocre opponent means this wasn't an especially significant game. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge). I agree with the nominator's rationale except insofar as he asserts that all the sources are WP:ROUTINE. My delete vote is based on the long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season (see 2007 Texas Longhorns football team#Oklahoma State) and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance. In this case, Texas played poorly for three quarters against a mediocre, unranked opponent and then launched a truly impressive comeback in the fourth quarter. I just don't see anything truly historic or extraordinary about the game to warrant a departure from the general practice. For me, it's not so much a question of notability, as most Power Five games get enough significant, non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:GNG. Instead, it's an issue of editorial judgment in how we present content about individual college football games, and I think the existing practice of relying on team season articles is sound. For further detail on the established practice, see (1) 2005 Texas v. Texas A&M; (2) 1996 UCLA vs. Tennessee; (3) 2011 Michigan vs Notre Dame; (4) 2008 Oregon vs. Oregon State; (16) 2007 Missouri vs. Kansas; (5) 2001 Tennessee vs. Florida; (6) 2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M; (7) 1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State; (8) 2006 USC vs. UCLA; (9) 2015 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech; (10) 2007 Pitt vs. West Virginia; and (11) 2006 Texas vs. Ohio State. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our long-standing precedent and practice is to avoid stand-alone articles about individual sports matches except in the most unusual/historic cases. All individual sport matches tend to attract significant media coverage, as this one did, in the local and sport-focused media. But I see nothing to override the principal that we avoid articles of this nature. AusLondonder (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2017 (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.