Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Missouri vs. Kansas 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Missouri vs. Kansas football game[edit]

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

Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games generally should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2007 Kansas Jayhawks football team and 2007 Missouri Tigers football team) or rivalry article about the series (see Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry)). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't have articles on games just because they involve highly ranked teams unless something very unusual happened. Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry) has a full paragraph on the game already. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. No established consensus has been established at WP:CFB in spite of claim by nominator. "not being inherently notable" is not the same thing as "not notable" --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for the sake of argument that this game satisfies GNG, that is still no reason why this game should not be covered in the respective season articles of the two teams, consistent with the well-established practices of WP:CFB -- that's how 99.99% of all CFB games are covered (see GNG excerpt #1 below). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- By that logic, Abraham Lincoln could be merged to President of the United States. Or we could just have one giagntic article called Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, it provides that "a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" may be suitable for a stand-alone article.

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a guarantee" does not mean "Delete it" by any stretch.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested it did, Paul, nor to my knowledge did anyone else. What it does mean, however, is that the Wikipedia community, WP:CFB, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter "may be better covered as part of another article." [Guidelines quoted above.] And you have yet to state a case why this subject material cannot be adequately covered as part of the two team's existing 2008 season articles and the Border War rivalry article. That's the argument in a nutshell: you're presuming notability (if, in fact, the topic is notable) equals a stand-alone article; other editors are saying that this material is better covered as part of the season and rivalry articles without another forking/fragmenting of the content, and that position is supported by the guidelines. That's all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: This whole thing is because you want to have one article deleted and its contents copied to two other articles?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, Paul. This "whole thing" is about curtailing the proliferation of stand-alone articles of for individual regular season games of marginal notability and virtually no long-term significance to the history, culture and/or lore of college football -- especially when there are already existing articles into which this content may be placed (i.e. the respective teams' season articles and rivalry articles). This is why we have season articles. It's not like anyone is saying the subject does not deserve some measure of coverage, but a strong majority of your fellow editors have repeatedly expressed their opinion that the overwhelming majority of regular season college football games (99.99%) are better covered as part of season or rivalry articles. And that's a perfectly sound editorial decision that GNG and NSPORTSEVENT permit us to make. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we follow that logic then the information on the game has to be maintained in two places (two season articles) and not one (game article). I don't think we're talking about every game anyway, but for the games that have articles already it makes so much more sense to keep them than to delete and place them the information two different articles that may not even exist yet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than routine coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 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.