Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 BCS National Championship 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 all. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the close of this AfD, the article 2013 BCS National Championship Game was userfied, after which is was moved back to main space after a short period of time. The consensus on this AfD to delete this particular article is much weaker than the other articles. It should also be noted that this game is the only game on this AfD which is part of the current season, a situation that I am unsure of if all those who argued to delete were aware of. Therefor, if seeking deletion of the article, it would be prudent to run a new AfD for the article, rather than to seek deletion per speedy deletion criterion G4. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 BCS National Championship Game[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see why we need these pages sitting here for another year or two years or three years. Contested prod (the first one). ... discospinster _talk 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON and judging from the always tenuous status of the BCS, may never be. This article will be fine to wait until December 2012. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we can expect that they'll happen, but just like Tropical Storm Alberto (2012), which we also expect will happen, there's nothing substantial to say about these games. Nyttend (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While we're at it, I added several articles of the same nature created by the same author. De FaultRyan 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overzealous article creation. I could see leaving 2013 because it's the next one, or making it a redirect to BCS National Championship Game. But if it stays, the "past-tense" text in the article needs to be modified since it is a future event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per other editors. It seems that the creator sort of wants to "be the first" to claim article creation on ones that will assuredly be eventually made. This is not uncommon practice among novice editors who want to break the news, so to speak. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I can assume the user started them with good intentions, but it is soon. In certain events, the championship games may never happen. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know something the rest of us don't? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Keep all-2013 BCS National Championship Game is less then 11 months away why would you delete it? The pages were made because of other editers crying about dead links. They are key start up articles that will have tons of pages linked to them. dont meet any reasons for deleting it is WP:OVERZEALOUS and users here have said it will be needed Wikipedia is a work in progress WP:WIP there is no guidelines of how soon to start working on a sports season that I have found and what does deleting it do it dont help anything to delete it WP:DDH Theworm777 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:CRYSTAL; the key answer to when you can start working on a sports season is "not until there are reliable sources discussing that season". A better solution to dead links (really? is there any page that already links to 2015 NCAA Division I FBS football season other than through Template:NCAA football season navbox?) would probably be to create the pages as redirects until there's actually something to be said about these seasons. cmadler (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added sources and the logo for it. Theworm777 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except 2013 BCS Championship game. I'm neutral on the 2013 game (though if kept, it needs to be rewritten into future tense), because it is the very next occurrence, is scheduled, has sources (more could be added, I'm confident), and will undoubtedly be notable. cmadler (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELREASON

Myths and facts about deletion
Myth: "Bad" articles get deleted in order to save space on Wikipedia.
Fact: On average, with all the discussions that take place, the process of getting an article deleted actually takes up more storage space than the article itself. Besides, once deleted, the discussion that led to the deletion remains permanently, and administrators still have access to the article. The real purpose of deletion is to restrict the encyclopedia to encyclopedic content. Theworm777 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's not a reason to keep the article. However, the lack of sources, notability, and substance are reasons to delete. (Like your enthusiasm, tho!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're correct that the purpose of deletion is to restrict the wiki to encyclopedic content. I have difficulty, though, imagining how articles that are substantially empty meet the standards of encyclopedic content. It would be one thing to have them sitting in your userspace waiting for deployment, but until we can find something for the articles other than "it's going to happen", they don't belong in the mainspace. ... discospinster _talk 17:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Wikipedia is a work in progress yes alot more needs to be added and that takes time but, I wont waste much of my time on a page that could be deleted. Theworm777 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except 2013 BCS Championship Game. WikiProject College football's working rule of thumb here for future articles is not to create articles for anything beyond the next, upcoming season. 2013 BCS Championship Game is part of the 2012 season, which is next on tap. Everything else here is too far out right now. Once the 2012 season starts at the end of the summer, it's then okay to start articles for the 2013 season. We're more than a year off from needing anything for the 2014 and 2015 seasons. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was not a consensus on "WikiProject College football's working rule of thumb here for future articles is not to create articles for anything beyond the next, upcoming season." see 2 of the comments from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Request_for_Comment:_Material_on_future_football_seasons

"I don't believe there is anything in Five Pillars that arbitrarily limits articles to one season in the future in cases where there is verifiable information from independent sources for an article like 2015 Michigan Wolverines football season. The key point IMO is whether a future season "would merit an article if the event had already occurred." If the answer is yes, we can change consensus from the past and avoid the practice of creating temporary holding articles. We first need to address whether the seasons are notable, we can then worry about behaviors in past AfDs." by User:Bagumba
"I feel that these multi-year horizon future season schedule articles should exist if there are WP:RS that provide content in need of being summarized. I believe that individual future season articles should exist when partial schedules, partial recruit commitments, and a modicum of news exists. I don't believe we should set a rule limiting our horizon to one year out although generally this will be the case." by User:TonyTheTiger
The 2 comments above are from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Request_for_Comment:_Material_on_future_football_seasons Theworm777 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key phrase from the above comments: ...where there is verifiable information from independent sources. cmadler (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second comment above, from TonyTheTiger, is about another type of article, e.g. Notre Dame Fighting Irish football future schedule, that spans from the upcoming year out further into the future. These are not articles that begin more than a season out, which is what the rule of thumb addresses. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is "verifiable information from independent sources." on all of the 2013-15Big East pages, 2013-14BCS championship game pages and 2013 NCAA Division I FBS football season pages so farWikipedia is a work in progress.WP:WIP For 2014 NCAA Division I FBS football seasonand 2015 NCAA Division I FBS football season why would we delete pages that will be needed and added to as info on them comes in if there is nothing on the pages that need sources(no laws or rules are being broke) right now? WP:WIP Theworm777 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because there is nothing of encyclopedic worth to have an article about the 2015 Big East season right now. This is an online encyclopedia, not a web host of "things that will happen." Why isn't there an article for United States presidential election, 2084? By your rationale, there should be. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is stuff of "encyclopedic worth to have an article about the 2015 Big East season right now" once Navy Joins the Big East in 2015 they will start having a Championship game in the 2015 season. There will more very soon also. But your example is 70 years + away comment not with-in 4 years like all of this is. Theworm777 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theworm777, you are right that there is encyclopedic content right now about things on the 2015 horizon. The relevant questions are where does that content belong and is there really enough of it out there yet to warrant framing out 2015-specific articles. Can't we sufficiently cover this stuff with a few blurbs at Big East Conference and Navy Midshipmen football? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss11,Yes we can "sufficiently cover this stuff with a few blurbs at Big East Conference and Navy Midshipmen football" and yes 2014 and 2015 may be too far ahead to do much more to them at this time but there is not any reason to lock/delete them is there? When stuff can be added as there is verifiable information from independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworm777 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theworm777, the reason not to have these future season articles more than one year out is that they will sit for too long as near-empty shells with a schedule, perhaps, and not much more. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four years, 70+, it doesn't matter, it's all the same – especially considering that these articles go against WP:CFB consensus that season articles are not to be written more than one college football season in advance. Additionally, you are arbitrarily deciding a cutoff as to when articles can be written in advance. It is your own whim that 70+ years is too far away yet 4+ is acceptable. Says who? Last time I checked, one year in advance is the accepted, consensus time frame. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This season is 2012 (spring ball starts soon) next season is 2013. Also there was no consensus WP:CFB that season articles are not to be written more than one college football season in advance. I am not "arbitrarily deciding a cutoff as to when articles can be written in advance". I use "if there is verifiable information from independent sources." of "encyclopedic worth to have an article about. Like stuff 70 years away will not have and stuff with-in 4 years will in most cases. Theworm777 (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest that you (Theworm777) might want to take a look at WP:CRYSTAL, which addresses exactly this issue. You're putting an awful lot of time into articles that have few or no sources and will eventually be entirely rewritten. Instead, why not consider improving one of the more-than-one-hundred high- and top-priority college football articles that are stubs or start-class? For example, a lot of past season articles are little more than a stub of text and a mess of tables, with little or no sourcing! cmadler (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at WP:CRYSTAL and these items fit under what is appropriate there from what I see there:

WP:CRYSTAL
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic. Theworm777 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not 1 reason good wikipedia reason given here to delete anything from the 2012 or 2013 football seasons here at all. There is verifiable information from independent sources." of "encyclopedic worth to have an article about on all of the 2012 and 2013 season pages. Yes there is not much on the 2014 or 2015 seasons yet. Theworm777 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Nonsense to have articles beyond next year's season.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL. The 2012 seasons haven't even happened yet, no point in having articles for 2013+ seasons. There isn't even any information in these articles, they are just blank, boilerplate frameworks waiting for information. Wait at least a year before re-creating the 2013 ones. —SW— ^comment 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Jrcla2 and Scottywong. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as premature and ultimately unhelpful (except perhaps the first one). A compromise would be to just redirect every article to an appropriate target e.g. 2013 BCS National Championship Game to BCS National Championship Game and 2014 Big East Conference football season to Big_East_Conference#Football. Pichpich (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except 2013 BCS National Championship Game the 2013 game will happen at the end of the 2012 season, and is the only event on this list that isn't flirting with WP:CRYSTAL status. De FaultRyan 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mt king ^(edits) 06:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Theworm777 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the BCS title game article as that is for this season (played in early 2013, but for the 2012 season, thus called 2013 championship game) and delete rest per WP:CRYSTAL.--Giants27(T|C) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was not proposed deletion notices on half of the items listed here, all the articles that had them, they were removed from before the 7 days was up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworm777 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed deletion is only for articles that the nominator thinks will be non-controversial to delete. If a PROD is contested, or if the nominator expects that it would be contested, it comes to a deletion discussion (this). cmadler (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per Crystal. No bar to recreation as that becomes appropriate -- which no doubt will first become appropriate w/the 2013 game.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:20, 20 February 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.