Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt fumble

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 keep. (WP:SNOW). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butt fumble[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic and BLP-violation, since it serves only to disproportionately deride a living person Howunusual (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal was a complete mess. I think I have fixed it. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have 43 sources in this article, it was an infamous NFL folly and likely was a turning point in the history in the Jets perception in the league. The article speaks in generalities about the game and the play and isn't intended to be hurtful to the subject from what I read. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article doesn't violate any part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so there is no policy concern. The article doesn't "deride" the subjects either. The facts are all uncontested, the subjective analysis is all referenced to professional journalists, and no balance issues have been raised on the talk page. Melchoir (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When you think Mark Sanchez, you think "butt fumble".RMc (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are games such as Immaculate Reception and Wide Right (Buffalo Bills) that are based off of singular plays. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most plays, even those like the Beckham catch, don't have inherent, lasting notability. This one does. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the only reasons I can think of to delete are listed in the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions... like "I don't like it" and such...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1) The play is not remotely comparable to the other football plays mentioned. Both of those were in playoff games, one was in the Superbowl, and the other led to a rule change. The only notability of this play was that it served to provide a lot of jokes about a living person. 2) Having a lot of sources isn't adequate to justify an article. The subject has to be encyclopedic, and this isn't. There are lots of sources about Renée Zellweger's alleged plastic surgery. That doesn't mean we make an article about just that. 3) This comment pretty much sums it up: "When you think Mark Sanchez, you think "butt fumble"." That would mean it belongs in the article on Mark Sanchez, and it would mean the article only serves to deride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer review, very few of the sources, and very little of the article, is actually about the subject of the article. And some of the sources pretty pathetic--an ESPN slideshow from 2 years ago is not a source. The article suffers from recentism, and is obviously just part of the authors' football rivalries....not encyclopedic. Howunusual (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even without the play though, two things make this a definite keep; first Thanksgiving game in primetime on one of the NFL's over-the-air partners, and one of the most notable games in the Jets–Patriots rivalry because of such and the margin of victory for the Pats, along with the unparalleled 21 unanswered points scored in less than a minute. Yes, it's mainly focused on one play, but the rest of the game is also described in the article. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: most articles of this sort are blatant recentism, sourced only to news articles from the time period. This is an exception: the reception section demonstrates that secondary sources exist for this incident, unlike for most articles, so it qualifies for WP:N. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a great need. 68.80.26.166 (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "Butt fumble" name has stuck, appearing repeatedly in the press including this recent article from The Wall Street Journal that includes this among other NFL games that have carried a moniker into posterity. It's part of the burden I have to carry as a Jets fan. At least Mark Sanchez has moved on to a better place. Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive and sustained coverage in reliable sources. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (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.