Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game[edit]

2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. The article violates WP:Notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_games_or_series, 2. the article is not sufficiently sourced, sources that do exist are from an official athletics website (which serves to promote the event), not an independent, nuetral third party that verifies notability; 3. content is already covered here as well as the here, where such coverage is more appropriate. Tedmoseby (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm quite sure that enough sources exist to more than surpass WP:GNG for inclusion of this article. I'll grant that they should be added to the article, but that is a content/editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it non-routine coverage however? Most college football games probably meet GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yeah... here's one [1] that is quite a lengthy article with way more than simple scores and statistics with 70 photos and 24 videos. Here's another [2] with preview before the game and review afterward. Here [3] is a third good-sized article. These three examples are clearly beyond the scope of WP:ROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here are the equivalent articles for an insignificant Northwestern/Boston College game from this past season: [4], [5], [6]... the definition of routine coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool! Someone ought to write those up! That's some significant widespread coverage, and I bet there's a whole bunch more!--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul, I hope you are not seriously suggesting people start doing single game articles for every game. This is why the season pages exist. If you go here you will see that there is already a lengthy section on the game, which I believe is the appropriate to that article and its purpose. Also consider that the game will essentially be covered twice, once the 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team is finished. And that doesn't even include the section on the game on the rivalry page. The actual game page asserts its importance without zero evidence to suggest its significance past the fact that the game happened and it was covered by multiple media outlets, just like both you and Eagle 24/7 illustrate. The original author even states that he thinks its important, but has yet to provide third party coverage saying it is. Consider 2011 LSU vs. Alabama football game to be what would be considered a notable game to have its own page, with 61 references to boot! Tedmoseby (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting it. I'm not going to do it. But if someone else wants to, and there's enough "meat" in the media to back them up for any given game, then I wouldn't stop them. Especially for the kind of coverage that this game has received. It is way past a routine listing of sports scores.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Paul's sources from ESPN.com and CBSSports.com are the same Associated Press article. Moreover, this does seems to be WP:ROUTINE, as "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events" that one would expect from a Football Bowl Subdivision game.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely agree that this is routine coverage. Almost every BCS game in the US receives similar coverage. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to my $60 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word "routine" is defined as follows: "n. 1. A prescribed, detailed course of action to be followed regularly; a standard procedure. 2. A set of customary and often mechanically performed procedures or activities. See synonym at method. 3. A set piece of entertainment [. . . .] adj. 1. In accord with established procedure; a routine check of passports. 2. Habitual; regular: made his routine trip to the store. 3. Having no special quality; ordinary: a routine day."

Can anyone tell me what is unusual, special, extraordinary, or non-routine about the media coverage of this game? The game was played seven months ago; are sports reporters and columnists still writing about it? Are ESPN anchors still talking about it? Were they still writing about it even seven days after it was played? Have books been written about it? Is the game still generating meaningful commentary in blogs seven months after it was played? Every reliable source article about the game which I have found was written in the two days following the game date. No reliable source articles of substance were generated even a week after it was played, no critical commentary was generated that puts the game in a historical perspective or assigns the game special significance to the sport of football or even in the context of the Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry. As for the game itself—was there some notable innovation that occurred in the game? First time that electrical lighting was used for a college football game? Did the game determine the outcome of the national championship? First time a college football team employed the forward pass? As best I can tell, the post-game media coverage simply recited the facts of the game, the very definition of the word "routine." If we are to accept that this game is notable based on the AP and ESPN coverage as indicative of its notability per WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:EVENT, then virtually every NFL game is notable, most Michigan and Notre Dame football games are notable, and so are the majority of football games played by Alabama, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Miami, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas and USC and a lot of other teams. Frankly, that would be absurd. Wikipedia would be swallowed by single-game professional and college sports articles. Even football almanacs don't carry that kind of game-specific coverage, and Wikipedia is not a sports almanac.

That is not the standard of notability for individual games played by college and professional sports teams, however. Championship games, including college bowl games, have a presumption of notability per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Regular season games do not. Yes, regular season games may be notable if they satisfy the general notability requirements of WP:GNG, but that is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Regular season games are news events and must ALSO satisfy the specific news event notability requirements of WP:NEWSEVENT, which says:

"Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.
"Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
"Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."

[emphasis mine]

Sorry, but based on the comments so far and my own review of the post-game coverage, I just don't see why this game would be considered notable enough to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The 2011 Michigan–Notre Dame game received standard post-game sports coverage in the sports media; it had no enduring historical significance or lasting effect, and it received no meaningful post-game analysis that put the game into a long-term perspective within American history and culture, or even the sport of college football. It was a news event, pure and simple. "Routine" does not necessarily imply a one-paragraph wire article and box score. The fact that there were lots of detailed articles written immediately after the game was played is largely irrelevant per WP:NEWSEVENT. The game received routine sports media coverage, and after the 2011 season was over, the game was already forgotten by everyone except the teams and fans of the respective schools involved.

I will wait to hear the comments of Paul and others, but unless someone comes up with a better argument than the game got a lot of media coverage on the Sunday and Monday after it was played, I am strongly leaning toward a "delete" vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sounds like a cool dictionary! I'd say the better definition should be what is outlined in the WP:ROUTINE guideline (although WP:NOTNEWS might be better). I see two sections in there that directly apply: 1) "...sports scores .. and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." 2) "Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." The first one to me seems to say that (my quotes) "A box score does not an article make" and the second one leaves an opening for events to either have their own article or be in a group. Since there is enough coverage of this event to clear WP:GNG, I would say that the event in question has cleared the hurdle of WP:ROUTINE. That's my reasoning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, WP:ROUTINE is one element of WP:NEWSEVENT. Have you read the rest of WP:NEWSEVENT, a large portion of which I have quoted above? When discussing any news event, including sports matches, the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG are not the final word; the requirements and guidelines of WP:NEWSEVENT are. In addition to satisfying the general requirements of WP:GNG, WP:NEWSEVENT also asks:
Does the subject event have "enduring historical significance?"
Does the subject event have "a significant lasting effect?"
Does the subject event have "have widespread (national or international) impact?"
Was the subject event "very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards?"
Is there "something further" that gives the event "additional enduring significance?"
Those are the critical questions to be asked, my friend. We are way past whether the amount of post-game media coverage generated satisfies WP:GNG. There's plenty of coverage, but subject news events may satisfy WP:GNG and still be excluded as non-notable because they lack significant long-term meaning, impact, effect, significance, etc. The notability standard applicable to news events is a very different standard than that applicable to people. Again, meeting the general notability standards per WP:GNG is necessary, but it is not enough. To be notable for Wikipedia purposes, a news event must also satisfy the requirements of WP:NEWSEVENT, of which WP:ROUTINE is only one part. And, yes, to be perfectly clear, I do believe that the sports media coverage of this game was "routine" per WP:ROUTINE. Again, the fact that there was a lot detailed routine coverage is irrelevant under WP:NEWSEVENT. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the subject event have "enduring historical significance?"
Yes, it was the first night game at Michigan Stadium and 2 elite programs played in this game.
Does the subject event have "a significant lasting effect?"
Yes, It set a NCAA record. It was also 1 of the top comebacks in Michigan's history.
Does the subject event have "have widespread (national or international) impact?"
Yes, Because of this game Michigan won team of the week awards and Denard Robinson won Rivals.com's Big Ten and National Player of the Week and won the Capital One Cup Impact Performance of the Week
Was the subject event "very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards?"
Yes, It won awards above and was ranked 3rd best regular season game of the year.
Is there "something further" that gives the event "additional enduring significance?"
Yes, the fact it was a called an "Instant Classic", Set a NCAA attendance record, was given 5 awards, was the 1st night game there,and it had a great comeback with the winning team scoring with just 2 seconds left made this more then a regular game and gave it "enduring significance".Theworm777 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dirtlawyer1. The most damning aspect in his argument is the fact that all of the sources were written within two or three days of the event. This game has no lasting impact on either program and will not be discussed in depth as a meaningful game even three years from now. Contrary to what a lot of editors on Wikipedia think, GNG does not allow articles to be kept carte blanche. It's why more specific guidelines exist, such as ONEEVENT – for cases like this. I should note that I don't think this game even passes GNG, so don't misinterpret what I mean by that. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It had a very dramatic ending and garnered a lot of attention for being the first night game at the Big House (heck, College GameDay was even there!) It also signaled the symbolic rebirth of a storied program that had recently fallen on hard times (much like the 1969 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game did back in Bo Schembechler's time). I'm sure Michigan fans will be looking back on it and talking about it many years in the future. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Davidfreesefan23 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

  • Comment Also the largest crowd of all time at any sporting event in the United States. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true, not even close. There are 10 motor speedways (one of which is the Michigan International Speedway) and three horse tracks (Churchill, Belmont, Pimlico) that regularly draw larger crowds (see List of sporting venues with a highest attendance of 100,000 or more). The largest crowd at any sporting event in the US (possibly in the world) is the Indianapolis 500, which regularly draws more than 260,000 spectators, with the Associated Press estimating 400,000 in 1990. cmadler (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, possibly not even the largest crowd at any college football game; the Chicago Bears claim that 123,000 fans attended a November 26, 1927, game at Soldier Field between Notre Dame and Southern California. cmadler (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That figure is unofficial and not recognized because Michigan has something like the top 10 attendance figures of all time at about 10,000 less than that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note that I used the weasel-words "possibly" and "claim"... cmadler (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Willing to reconsider if supporters to keep can provide sources that demonstrate continued coverage alluding to significance of first night game at Michigan Stadium. If that shown to be the claim to fame, details of the actual game have WP:UNDUE weight as currently written.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict) - Does anyone else feel all Déjà vu-y? Same content type, same arguments, and what I think should be the same result. Dirtlawyer outlines this very well: the game, although 'notable', has nothing more then routine coverage and so fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. User:Davidfreesefan23: a dramatic ending doesn't mean much, in today's sports world (see the Wide left example). Now, if we had an article written after the fact about the "symbolic rebirth of a storied program that had recently fallen on hard times" this discussion might be different...but that is OR-ish and irrelevant right now. The content can obviously go into the related season articles, but a separate article isn't needed. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In fairness to David and the other "keep" votes, a dramatic ending may contribute to a game's notability, but the notability of the game will ultimately be determined by the nature of the media coverage the game receives. Routine post-game coverage in the media is not enough; the coverage should emphasize the larger significance of game in a larger context. Continuing coverage after the fact indicates greater significance and probable Wikipedia notability. That's what WP:NEWSEVENT is all about. Case in point, I do seem to remember several notable Florida State–Miami games whose claim to legendary status rests on a game-ending failed field goal (or two). And, yes, people still talk about and write about those FSU–UM games years later, meaning that they are probably notable for Wikipedia purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I understand, hence the specification "in today's sports world". Nowadays there are likely to be any number of spectacular, game-ending/-winning plays (watch SportsCenter's Top 10 on a Monday morning) and the sheer number means that each individual one is less likely to have lasting coverage/notability. I wasn't around for the first FSU-UM games you reference, but I've always gotten the impression that the lower overall sports coverage -- though higher proportion dedicated to that game -- contributed to those games' fame. Instead of that, we often have multiple articles, blogs and recaps of games....all published within 48 hours. After that, very little. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bagumba, I hope no one is in a rush to close this AfD, either way. This is a discussion that the WP:NFL and WP:CFB projects really need to have regarding the characteristics of individual regular season games that make them notable, and I, for one, would really like to see all of the regular project editors participate. At some point in the near future, I think we probably need to codify the notability guidelines applicable to individual football games in a single place, or at least have all of the applicable guidelines cross-referenced to a single place. In any event, the two football projects need to firm up the applicable single-game precedents in a CFB and NFL context, so that we have a stable consensus going forward regarding what makes an individual regular season game notable. IMHO, of course. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from the lasting coverage debate, I believe the basis of a first night game to denote notability is a stretch. One could argue that a night game, in any stadium regardless of size, in the 21st century is routine. The NFL plays one every Sunday and Monday Night (and sometimes Thursdays!), and ESPN televises one nearly every Thursday and Saturday night. The fact this night game is made a big deal comes from the Michigan athletics website in order to sell tickets and merchandise. Not due to any historic significance to the overall game of college football. I have yet to see any independent sources discussing the game in a historic context and like others have said, few if any articles outside the few days before and after the event. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • replyThere are many sources that talk about the historic significance of this game months before it was even played most games do not get singled out and wrote about like this has. I added 3 or 4 of them to the refs on this article if you do a google search for "Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game Sept 10, 2011" it comes up with "About 1,850,000 results". Theworm777 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. The sources added deal mainly with the significance of the first night game. If there is no significant coverage after the game occurred, I see no reason for a standalone coverage when Michigan Stadium already covers this night game. The details on the game itself—not coverage on the logistics and significance of a night game—masks the lack of notability of this article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to theworm777 - I googled what you asked. The results prove exactly what Dirtlawyer1 and Bagumba argue previously. It has lots of coverage on and around the day it happened. This article [7] from June 10, 2011 talks about the uniforms (marketing ploy to sell more jerseys). Exactly 1 article [8] mentions the game as historic outside the weekend of coverage, a local article from The Michigan Daily. The coverage is more about the announcement rather than the game itself and occurs before the game. The 5th search result is the Michigan-Notre Dame rivalry article! Now, if you google "Historic Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game Sept 10, 2011" You get that same Michigan Daily article, and the the next two results are Wikipedia articles on Michigan Stadium and the rivalry! The results are either routine coverage, videos, or Wikipedia articles. Tedmoseby (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a post game section about all the awards received because of this game Big Ten named Denard Robinson its Offensive Player of the Week, while the Davey O'Brien Award named him its Quarterback of the Week. He was also named Rivals.com's Big Ten and National Player of the Week and was nominated for the Capital One Cup Impact Performance of the Week, which he won by fan vote. I think this makes it more then a normal event also. I will vote latter after there is more discussion Theworm777 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any non-duplicative information where appropriate (likely 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team#vs. Notre Dame) per Dirtlawyer1. It definitely feels like Recentism and I would question the games lasting impact on anything outside the Michigan Wolverine football program, and even that is questionable at this point. I don't think it is particularly notable from Notre Dame's perspective, either. If we come back and revisit this topic in two or three years and there are articles still being written about the game and its impact (not just references fact lights were used at a Michigan home football game for the first time), then we can perhaps reexamine it. However, I suspect that those articles will not happen. Further, the use of lights just for Michigan is not sufficiently notable to college football in general. In contrast, an article about the first use of lights in college football history might be. IMO, this game does not live up to any such sort of notability. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because it's the first night game in a school's history doesn't mean much. If you spread it out into the 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team articles, it'd work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZappaOMati (talk • contribs) 21:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sufficiently noteworthy to qualify as a stand-alone article. Use the content in the season articles.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All those saying Keep - meets WP:GNG are ignoring the policy of WP:NOT (or rather the subsection of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), the relent notability guidelines here (other than WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) are either WP:EVENT or WP:SPORTSEVENT, there is a requirement that coverage of an event continue beyond a relatively short news cycle that is not the case here so it therefor falls neatly into what WP:NOTNEWSPAPER envisages when it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Mtking (edits) 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not ignoring the policy of WP:NOT. I'm stating that it has been surpassed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then, given the game was in September 2011, there will be no problem showing WP:RS that cover the game that have been published in 2012 then. Mtking (edits) 07:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a split from 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team, Michigan Stadium and 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team articles and should be. It was the 1st night game at the big house. There was 4 or 5 awards given to Michigan and a player of theirs because of their performance in this game. It also set a NCAA attendance record of 114,804 for NCAA football games. It was one of the biggest comebacks in histroy of Michigan Wolverines football. The amount of post-game media coverage generated satisfies WP:GNG. There's plenty of coverage as Dirtlawyer1 has said. Theworm777 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have missed Dirtlawyer1's point completely. Obviously there is coverage in the media of this game, but, as he says, not enough "continued" coverage at least a few days after the game. Nearly every FBS college football game receives the same amount of coverage immediately after games. Not all of them are notable enough to warrant individual articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This game is certainly a notch below those games in terms of notability. I just don't think it is a run-of-the mill game. I think the first night game at the largest stadium is almost like the first night game at Wrigley or something.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at those articles, but if they don't have continued coverage they might be candidates for deletion as well.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued coverage is not required for everything. No games not even Bowl games have continued coverage. These games have lasting significance because they set NCAA records.Theworm777 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of thoughts. First, it feels like those who want to keep the article are searching for the game's significance. Initially it was because it was Michigan's first night game. Now it is record attendance. It should be obvious from the start why the game is important. Secondly, the two examples you use aren't exactly the best examples of a Wikipedia article. Do you see the difference between the examples you found and the examples Dirtlawyer1 provided in terms of the sheer amount of citations that cover a long time span? (If any thing we might consider moving forward deletion on the examples you provided as well). Looking at the stats on attendance for Michigan Stadium, attendance is being broken several times each year according to the article. One could argue these are hardly momentous achievements, if they are broken on a regular basis (perhaps routine?). Where are the articles on those games if record attendance is so important? Finally, attendance is something manufactured and manipulated by the size of the stadium and a university's marketing department, as well as how many bodies a university is willing to allow into a stadium. It has nothing to do with the actual game play of the athletes and the coaches (forgive me if this takes the conversation in a completely different direction, but perhaps this should be a criteria for notability?). Tedmoseby (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bagumba, take a look at the different ways that WP:NEWSEVENT describes how a news event might achieve notability, including "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline." Continuing coverage is one of the other several possible indicia of notability when combined with media coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. The record-setting 2007 Navy and Weber State games are most probably notable under one or more of the several suggested rationales. That being said, I'm not sure if buy the argument that the largest home crowd rises to the same level as the longest game (seven overtimes) or the all-time high-scoring Division I game. Ultimately, it depends not on whether a record set, but on the nature of the media coverage that the game received. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dirtlawyer1, I'm generally in agreement. I didnt choose to look at those articles, so I prefaced my comments with "might" and mainly wanted to point out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always indicative that similar articles should be kept.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Theworm777, specific bowl bowl games are likely to be discussed in future games in that bowl series, or years later in the history of the respective schools. Many records on the other hand, receive only trivial if any future coverage. If the coverage does exist, the record itself would be the focus of the article, not the entire game.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, Bagumba, let's play this absolutely straight and say that if were 100% clear that this game were non-notable under the applicable guidelines, then the !vote would be more lopsided than it is. My concern in this discussion is not this article, but that we clarify the notability standards for individual regular season games. Personally, I think this game is closer to a "delete" than a "keep," but there are credible arguments for keeping it. Again, it's not 100%, and there is an element of subjectivity in the applicable guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your goals are mostly being accomplished, as most participants have cited guidelines such as WP:NEWSEVENT or its variants which can be applied to other articles.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that earlier consensus is that bowl games are presumed to be notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT because they historically do have continued coverage and/or historical significance. There is no similar presumption for NCAA records. Note that even if the articles is deleted, it can be userfied and re-created later if/when more coverage is found.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A NCAA Record has historical significance. Right? Theworm777 (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a sports fan perspective, sure. However, I was using a less fan-based perspective, specifically WP:EFFECT.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any non-duplicative information where appropriate per Dirtlawyer1. Simply keeping because the game was the first night game at the Big House would be like making articles for games such as the 2004 South Florida vs. Alabama football game as it was Alabama's last at Legion Field or for the 2000 Iron Bowl as it was the first played in Tuscaloosa since 1901. Are these important in the realm of Alabama football, yes. However in the greater context of college football as a whole, not so much. Furthermore, if a player is recognized as being "player of the week" in a particular game is it not more appropriate to note that in either the season or their individual player article rather than creating one for an individual game? Patriarca12 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those games that were deleted did not set a NCAA record like these did. It was not just a player who was recognized the whole team was also. Theworm777 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worm, keep in mind that the fact that a record was set in a given game is not determinative in determining notability. Ultimately, the nature of the media coverage that the event received is your best argument. Take a look at WP:NEWSEVENT again, and try to grasp the bigger picture. Once the event has achieved a certain measure of media coverage that nominally satisfies WP:GNG, what WP:NEWSEVENT is trying to get at, conceptually, is whether the event has some longer-term significance. A significant record might be that longer term significance. Does an attendance record rise to that level? Maybe, maybe not, but if the game also received continuing coverage it would be far less of a judgment call, and I would certainly lean toward deeming the game notable. Personally, I think it would be more helpful in this AfD, and in formulating better notability guidelines for individual games, if everyone would focus on what the ideal guidelines should be, and not finding a way to squeeze this article under the wire or reject it. This AfD is an example of a much broader notability problem involving single games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a game had non-trivial mention years or at least weeks afterwards from multiple independent sources, I would deem it likely to be notable.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is some coverage from 3 days ago. [9] more from about 20 days ago here [10] and its not even football season yet.Theworm777 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont consider this non-trivial coverage. Also, it's pretty WP:ROUTINE that any coverage of a team would mention the last matchup with a given opponent.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worm777, I appreciate your efforts in better sourcing the article and trying to satisfy the admittedly tough standards for the notability of regular season football games. That having been said, blogs are not considered to be reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability, and that especially includes volunteer fan blogs such as bleacherreport.com. The Fox Sports series of online photos and captions of the top 10 games of 2011 is borderline trivial and includes no real commentary about the significance of the game. I also note that of the top 10 games cited in the photo montage, only one of the other nine has a standalone Wikipedia article—the regular season Alabama–LSU matchup that set the stage for the BCS Championship Game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE:Dirtlawyer1 This game was far from a routine regular season game and has enough continued coverage and reliable sources from sites like Fox sports, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, NBC sports, Sporting News, and USA Today. WP:NSEASONS says "For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline)." and at WP:SPORTSEVENT "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 or the Blood in the Water match) Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." I have shown this game has recived more then routine coverage a regular season game being ranked in top 52 of all games in all sports is far from routine. Also all the rewards received becuase of this made it far from routine. Setting a NCAA record is not routine either. It is 3 or 4 months after the season ended. I am sure there will be more as writers are mentioning this games NCAA record, that it was "Under the Lights" and the last second come from behind win anytime they get chance to. Theworm777 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Already coverage on the rivalry page and the teams' season articles. No need for an additional article in my opinion. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage on the other pages are a WP:SPLIT to this page. Should all 4 of the pages this is split from have all this info on them or should it be left as it is to 1 verifiable and well sourced article? I have added many sources since this was put up for deletion. Theworm777 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AVOIDSPLIT says not to split articles when the resulting article is not notable, which is the case here without identified continued coverage. Transclusion could be used to share text within articles.—Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was talked about here [11] on Mar 15, 2012. It was ranked 3rd best in Top 10 college football games for 2011 regular season at [12] on Dec 26, 2011. Like it was in the other articles I have linked above. There is 1.6 million results if you search for first night game at michigan stadium . Theworm777 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not "only citing the raw number of search hits" like you said I did. I showed 4 links to Continuing coverage of this game and mean there is 1000s more pages to check for more. Theworm777 (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck out "only". The coverage is ROUTINE IMO and trending toward recentism as others have noted.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that the information in this article could be merged into all of the areas where this topic is covered (e.g., team pages, rivalry page, etc.). There just isn't enough continuing coverage from a historical perspective to warrant its own article. Go Phightins! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Its not "ROUTINE" when at the end of December 2011 this game was rated 3rd best regular season game of the year on msn.foxsports.com [13] and was rated 36 best game/event of 2011 by Sports Illustrated.[14]. This is "continuing coverage" like the other examples I have shown. I have added this to article now also. Theworm777 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game probably should get a little more treatment on the rivalry page from a historic perspective, but a detailed account of the game would trend toward WP:Recentism, given that the rivalry article is supposed to be about the series in its entirety, not just the most recent game played.Tedmoseby (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wondering where the AFD stands. I commend TheWorm77 for finding sources for the article, but I still believe with sources, the article violates Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_games_or_series and is routine. Consider that the sources that are being used are routine coverage. While they are continuing coverage in a sense, they are all routine "end of the year" of "best of 2011" articles. Sportswriters write these articles on a yearly basis to recap the season. Moreover, none of these articles rate the game as the most important game of the year and are trivial recaps of the game. One article used cites the game as the 36th best game of the year... not exactly important. None of the sources point to the game as important in a historical context. There is no coverage that reaches "game of the century" discussion or that discusses the impact of the game on the sport. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree...you pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article that ranked it the 36th best game of the year included all games and sports events, Golf (the Masters), NASCAR, Tennis (Grand Slams), NFL (Super Bowl) , NBA (playoffs), MLB, NCAA (Basketball), and alot more. So 36th for a Regular Season game is important. It was also ranked above many bowl games and Conf. Championship games which have articles. Theworm777 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to say that I've been watching the sources Theworm has brought up but remain in my former position. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Michigan Daily is the student newspaper of the University of Michigan, and is therefore not considered to be a "independent of the subject" in order to be a reliable source for purposes of establishing notability for Wikipedia per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Specifically, the general notability guideline states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject" per WP:GNG. This also excludes press releases, media guides, online news articles or other promotional materials produced by the UM athletic department or the university public relations team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regretfully, despite the best efforts of several editors to rescue this article from the notability concerns outlined above, I must say that I have not seen anything in the way of substantial commentary on the greater significance of this game to college football. To the extent continuing coverage exists over the seven months since the game was played, virtually all of it appears to be trivial in nature—a sentence here, a sentence there. No serious analysis, no in-depth commentary. At this point, I think we should begin thinking about how we incorporate the salvageable parts of this article into the stand-alone Wikipedia articles for the 2011 FBS college football season, the Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry, Michigan Stadium, and Michigan Wolverines football. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Michigan_vs._Notre_Dame_football_game&oldid=1145830001"