Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M 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 should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team and 2013 Texas A&M Aggies football team). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPORTSEVENT and lack of coverage beyond the WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of pre-game build up around this game especially after last years game between the two teams. THis game also had an exciting finish as Texas A&M nearly came back from a 21-point deficit falling short losing 49-42. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:19 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This game was #23 on ESPN's list of the top 25 college football games of 2013. It seems that that would count as coverage beyond the routine. --B (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - B, notwithstanding ESPN's ranking of the game as No. 23 of 2013, rarely do more than three or four regular season games merit stand-alone articles in a given season. As No. 23, without something more, it probably does not make the cut. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly surpasses WP:GNG. Clearly surpasses WP:ROUTINE with feature articles in independent sources from multiple outlets.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had these debates many times before, Paul. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reading 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, "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)."

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." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is just another routine game. One of hundreds played in college football each year, and just one of many thousands played in all of sports. Reso lute 14:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, ss far as I know there is no procedure for combining AfDs after they have been filed, and I object to your proposal to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. It's the AfD nominator's prerogative to nominate articles individually or in a bundled manner. In my experience, invariably the fairest way is to to nominate articles for AfD individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. As I have said before, bundled multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly confused when it includes multiple articles -- especially when there are 16 articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable for inclusions, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

really? "If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable for inclusions" --what, you think I've just been pulling your leg? Did you expect me to respond with, "No I'm just kidding..." My position has been clearly stated. Stating it again is extraneous.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to the specific 2013 Alabama/Texas A&M season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 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.