Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cowboys Classic

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) 06:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Cowboys Classic[edit]

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

Individual regular season college football kickoff 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 individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Cowboys Classic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any hope that it could meet WP:GNG? Kingjeff (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff, that's not the way WP:CFB generally handles regular season games. Without some greater significance to the particular game, we discourage the creation of stand-alone articles for regular season games -- otherwise the floodgates are open. "Greater significance" generally means significant coverage over time, not just the usual post-game coverage. If the individual game is still not receiving significant coverage in independent, reliable sources more than a year after the fact, it probably doesn't qualify. We are already in the process of deciding which already existing single-game articles to purge. Satisfying the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG is not a guaranty that a subject qualifies for a stand-alone Wikipedia article; in this case, there is ample outlet for this particular content in the parent article, Cowboys Classic, including the score and a brief one-paragraph summary of this individual game's highlights. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 10:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the Cowboys Classic should have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:06 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Please note that articles for individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games have also been nominated for deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep the coverage of this game is far beyond WP:ROUTINE score listings and clearly passes WP:GNG. Personally I don't think that Wikipedia should have an article for every game, but [{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is not a reason to delete. The coverage is there, the article is made, I see no reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is not merely the listing of scores. 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, NFL, NBA and MLB regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted, and that's not what was intended. Moreover, merely satisfying WP:GNG is not a guaranty that subjects merit a stand-alone article on Wikipedia; for this content, we already have individual season articles and rivalry articles for individual games, and for kickoff games such as this, one-paragraph summaries of the individual games in the parent article are adequate. WP:SPORTSEVENT suggests 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." None of these game received national front page coverage, and none of them are even close in notoriety to the example matches provided. WP:ROUTINE suggests that "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." That should be pretty clear to everyone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"may be better" is very clear. So is "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." You're reading far more into routine than is given in the guideline. Now, it's early... am I going to have to cut and paste this fifteen times into the other AFDs?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 are my comments on point, Paul, and then I am happy to leave these AfD discussions to our fellow editors . . . .

I have a suggested reading assignment of the notability guidelines for you:

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.)

Bottom line: there is an existing consensus that stand-alone articles should only be created for exceptional regular season games, that content should usually be incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles, and that regular season games should be of some greater significance if they are to have stand-alone articles rather than being incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles. This consensus is borne out by the very limited number of stand-alone article for regular season games (about 98 in 145 years) that presently exist. And many regular editors want this material reincorporated into their rivalry articles (see 2001 Florida vs Tennessee football game) -- it's an entirely reasonable position, as well as the examples provided by SPORTSEVENT. It's perfectly clear from other references in WP:NSPORTS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS that regular season sports events are held to a different standard, that the definition of "routine" goes beyond "sports scores," and from WP:GNG that significant coverage is no guaranty of inclusion as a stand-alone article.
As other editors have already pointed out to you in other pending AfD discussions, what constitutes "routine coverage" of CFB games when the ESPN and AP recaps of virtually every Division I FBS game equal or exceed the coverage of the subject of this particular AfD, it's apparent to most folks that that becomes the standard of ROUTINE coverage for CFB games. Otherwise, every regular season game is notable, every regular season game is suitable for a stand-alone article, and we have a real problem with the notability standards that needs to be addressed. I don't believe that's what it says, and I don't believe that's what was intended, and if we need to clarify this at the talk pages for GNG, NSPORTS and ROUTINE, I am confident that a strong majority of !voters will agree. That probably needs to happen in any event to put a stop to the argument. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:23, 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, as the nominator, I object to any attempt to combine these AfDs as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled, multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, 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. 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 inconsistent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, 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 and demands. BTW, there are 16 pending AfDs regarding regular season college football games, not 17. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (After initial research, copied from similar case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State football game) Treat the game, a sporting event, like any other WP:NEWSEVENT. Fails WP:INDEPTH, which advises "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "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."—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Cowboys Classic where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cowboys Classic. The information about all these games can easily be included on that page. Spanneraol (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spanneraol: I could easily support selectively merging content from several of the single-game Cowboys Classic articles to the parent article, as you suggested, but virtually all of the relevant content from the 2014 game article has already been included in the parent. There's not much left to merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is nothing meaningful to merge here that isn't already in Cowboys Classic.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 10 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.