Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin

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 redirect to Damar Hamlin. Having devoted a fair chunk of my morning to reading this a couple of times over, can I firstly say that this is one of the better examples of how cordial and constructive a Wikipedia discussion can be - minimal comments directed at editors, plenty of reference to policy and discussion about this articles' place within them, and firm comments still showing plenty of respect to others and the situation as a whole. Not something we always see at AfDs of this nature!

My assessment of this debate is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article (combination of merge + redirect, redirect, and delete). This is the overwhelming majority viewpoint of this article's compliance (or non-compliance) to our various policies that are applicable.

On this basis, the final decision taken is that this article will be redirected (as the path of least resistance for alternatives to deletion), with the following notes:

  • any editor is welcome to merge the content from behind the redirect to the main article (Damar Hamlin or elsewhere
  • it is unlikely that there will be developments that nullify the consensus here in the immediate future, so I would encourage that this redirect decision 'stick' at least in the immediate future
  • if, in an indeterminate period of time, this needs to be revisited due to new information or further context, of course it can be at the relevant location - but I would caution to ensure that either a) the new information or further context addresses the concerns expressed by the consensus below, or b) a good-faith belief that the consensus of the community would have changed or relevant policies/guidelines had changed significantly. This would include a reframing (and renaming) of this article as being for the match itself, rather than the single incident.
  • finally, if anyone who !voted 'delete with no redirect' feels so strongly about it, please feel free to nominate at RfD at your convenience. However, again like point 3, I'd gently encourage everyone to let the situation sit on ice for a little bit if possible on this front, although ultimately I can't enforce that any more than a simple suggestion. Daniel (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary content fork from Damar Hamlin. The consensus at Talk:Damar Hamlin#Does the notoriety of this incident warrant a separate article? was that a separate article was not warranted at this time. Splitting discussion between two articles at this time is not helpful to editors or writers, and the main article is not unmanageable. The creator removed the speedy deletion tag and reversed a redirection, and has generally been uncommunicative. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The bulk of the discussion on the original talk page took place before this article was created, and rationale for not splitting at that time largely hinged on there not being enough information to fork. Clearly this new article has satisfied information volume requirements, is well-sourced, and bound to continue growing as well. Whether the article creator split information properly or is being generally cooperative is a completely separate matter. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this account is three days old. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My account is actually only two days old, as I decided to pick up editing on January 1st. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know your way around Wikipedia's more intricate systems for a two-day old account. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. So, I was around many years ago, and suppose some amount of familiarity sticks around. There is plenty I don't know, too, and perhaps it's premature for me to jump into a discussion such as this one. I just saw it come up and jumped on it. I'll make no attempt to pretend I'm a currently established editor, but hopefully some of what I remember can be used to help in other areas. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - Improper content fork for numerous reasons. A discussion at Talk:Damar Hamlin had already established a consensus not to have a separate article, and this was clearly noted on the talk page in a {{consensus}} hatnote. The splitter Esolo5002 did not engage in any discussion on the talk page, did not add a {{Split}} template to the original page, and also did an improper copy-paste of the content, without proper attribution as per WP:PROPERSPLIT. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the user's edit summaries, they very clearly said where they took the article from. Please don't smear people like this. Maine 🦞 17:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your account is a week old so I'll cut you some slack. Please read the guideline for WP:PROPERSPLIT. The inadequate edit summary is in violation of Wikipedia best practices for copyright and CC-BY-SA compliance. It ain't me smearing. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per discussion on Damar Hamlin TP, CFORK/split is not required. Hamlin’s page is manageable enough. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 15:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to merge and redirect given the fact that the article name is a plausible search term and that some new information may have been inputed into the article. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - :I agree that this comes across as a WP:Content Fork. I could see an argument being made that it feels premature and pointless to make a separate article like this when Damar Hamlin's own page contains enough information and thorough coverage of the event, although I understand why someone would, given that this incident has sparked larger discussions (mainly about health issues in American football) outside of Damar Hamlin's career and this specific incident. Largely because the article goes against the consensus on Damar Hamlin's talkpage, but also because there are no similar articles for similar incidents (like Kevin Everett or Ryan Shazier), I propose that this article be deleted - and possibly (but not likely) recreated only if there are significant developments, discussions, or outcomes that wouldn't fit Hamlin's own page. Afddiary (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse as a valid search term. Though the article itself is an improper article split, with consensus not to have been created, the redirect seems sensible. No merge needed, as covered adequately in the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as page creator): I created the article based on what I believed to be lots of reliable sources covering the situation and sustained coverage. I was unaware of any other policies and just created the article based on my past experience. I’m not sure why the delete requester is calling me uncommunicative. I said my opinion in the original speedy deletion opinion. I also didn’t delete the speedy deletion tag. I’m not on Wikipedia all day, and don’t have notifications on, so I was unaware of other requests to comment. I’ve also been accused of copy and pasting. I thought saying “Content copied from Damar Hamlin, see that page for full attribution” was sufficient. Am I wrong? Esolo5002 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are indeed wrong. A content fork/split is a major undertaking and is very disruptive, which is why we have detailed guidelines on Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and WP:PROPERSPLIT explaining the community obligations and the copyright ramifications, which Wikipedians take very seriously. After multiple requests on your talk page and adding your username to ping templates, you have not engaged in any of the places we have asked. In that sense, "uncommunicative" is a fair description. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, "Concensus or not it has been created" (Special:Diff/1131305149) was an inappropriate response and a more thorough response on the existing talk page was called for. Regarding I’m not on Wikipedia all day, and don’t have notifications on, that's fine, but you should take that into account if you're going to introduce a major change to a high visibility page that is undergoing constant revision. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Copied template should be used to signify that the article was copied on both the article you copied from (subject main page) and the article you created. This never happened, as both talk pages did not have Copied template banners. If I am wrong though, please correct me. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 16:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's even worse than that. The edit summary of the initial paste should have adhered to the guidelines described at WP:PROPERSPLIT (see item 4), so that is much harder and messier to fix. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very true, even if page creator did try to input that edit summary in their later (1) edits (2). --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 16:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All I missed was the "Contents WP:SPLIT from" in that section. Does it really make it that much harder to fix? Esolo5002 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer politely, it does at least incur ambiguity to the administrative side and going about fixing it. Besides the splitting procedure, this AfD discussion is another example of the bureaucratic overhead incurred. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally unnecessary content fork. This event is a part of Hamlin's biography and is not certain to be notable outside of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. This is a very unusual situation and it is very possible that there will be continued coverage of this event, such as improved safety protocols, rule changes, etc, making it possible that this would be a good WP:SPINOFF article from Hamlin's article and/or health issues in American football at some point in the coming months. But such coverage does not exist mere hours after the incedent took place. Frank Anchor 15:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the following lists of deletion discussions: New York and Ohio. Frank Anchor 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse: It makes sense as a search term but it's an unnecessary content fork. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just redirect this to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse or talk about it on the 2022 NFL season page. Swagging (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not worthy of a separate article. Truly unfortunate what happened but doesn't need a stand alone article. Relevant details not already included in Hamlin's article should be added.--Rockchalk717 17:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we can write a longer, separate article about it, then we should write one. And this article is longer and better than just a paragraph in the article on Hamlin. Let's write a better article and ignore bad rules. Maine 🦞 17:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't have a page for Tua's concussion, just because a major health accident happens in an NFL game doesn't mean it needs an article. TomMasterRealTALK 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should have a page on Tua's concussion. Maine 🦞 19:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need a page for Tua's concussion. We can just leave it on his Wikipedia page. TomMasterRealTALK 19:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tua's concussion didn't receive nearly as much coverage as this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created without discussion and against an existing consensus at Talk:Damar Hamlin, and unnecessary at this time. General Ization Talk 19:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per all the reasons listed above. Ayyydoc (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect Obviously has extensive coverage in the initial hours but that is not an indication of needing a wikipedia article. Too soon creation that should be redirected and let time decide if the event warrants an individual article. Slywriter (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if there is much to merge. In my opinion, the sections that seem to have additional information would be the "Background", "Game before the incident", "Television coverage", and "NFL criticism." NFL criticism only uses the New York Post as a source, so that is likely to be a problem. I am unsure if we need anything from the Background or Game before the incident section to be added to the Damar article. Television coverage is both unique and well sourced, but most of it doesn't seem like it would fit with the Damar article. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    May not be, but is sort of my standard it's notable but doesn't mean it needs its own article answer. Guess WP:NOPAGE and WP:SBST would sum up my rationale. Slywriter (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. It looks like there are a few more additions in the last 24 hours that are not covered on Damar's article. I suppose that a merge makes a lot more sense now. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind specifying what you would like to merge? For convenience, this is the history range since 4 January and Special:Diff/1131344777/1131657781 is the overall diff. There have been more edits to Damar Hamlin despite that article being under extended confirmed protection. I will proceed down the diff:
    It looks like you recommended keep below (Special:Diff/1131646250/1131652131). Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flatscan: Yeah. My opinion has shifted since the start of this AfD process. I was initially bias against the article because of the talk page situation. However, I did some reflection after the discussion above and I think that the Aftermath section was what convinced me that a standalone article made some sense. This AfD also played a role in my thoughts below. I think the current article is a bit rough, but can be polished up a bit more. I think that it might take some time for some editors to edit this article, but we will see depending on the results of the AfD. Anyways, I will keep your comments here in mind. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no concensus, WP:NEWS and while sad, this is not news when it does happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a plausible search term per Joseph2302. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. I don't believe this event merits its own article and a lot of it is already covered on the subject's article, which can be expanded further. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. Some good stuff about the national media coverage of the incident in this article, but that can be moved to the in-game collapse section for now. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. There's some good writing here, but the event is ultimately not notable enough for its own article. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin for now. This article screams of recentism. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. Hamlin's article isn't long enough to warrant a split like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse per the above. If he ends up dying, and it has sufficient impact on the future of the NFL (regulations, etc.), then we can re-evaluate. But for now, I'd say this doesn't warrant a split. DecafPotato (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse. Better than deleting because it avoids someone re-creating the unnecessary content fork. While there is so much interest in the subject, it is better to keep all the content on one page. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Damar Hamlin. As of now, there really isn't a need to create a separate article regarding this unfortunate incident. For now, I think that we should expand on the main article, and perhaps a separate article could be created in the future if we have a significant development. It's a bit too early to really consider making a separate article at the moment. --James161723 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A section in the article for Hamlin is the obvious choice. Also, once again, leading with a date of an event rather than the topic of the event is bad practice. Is there any way to make WP:AT clearer on this? (Well, first folks have to read it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamona (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why delete when it could be merged? Maine 🦞 04:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AT defeats my argument that it discourages recreating the article, as another content fork would more appropriately be titled something like Collapse of Damar Hamlin. The counter-argument for WP:MERGE is that it retains the edit history. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • snow Delete/merge obviously a newsworthy event but also obviously something that belongs in the biography of the person, at least for now. If 12 months from now it turns out this had some big lasting societal impact then maybe I'd look at it differently, but until then a section in the biography is standard across the wiki. I think the discussion here is pretty solid on unforking this. EoRdE6(Talk) 05:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @EoRdE6: I don't think that's how use WP:SNOW, SNOW only applies when the proposal itself has a very low chance of passing. What you're saying is that it has a very high chance of passing. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think there are lots of rational arguments for deleting. However, the article is well sourced and has been the topic of lots of news coverage the last few days. Like what happened with December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions, this article should be kept becuase of the clear extended coverage. 207.38.131.194 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why it's well sourced is because it is largely a copy of what was already on the original page, Damar Hamlin. In the meantime, the Hamlin page has already evolved to be much more detailed in its description than the one under discussion here. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge, no redirect. Many participants agree this is a content fork that should not be a separate article, so I will focus on merge and redirect.
    As a reminder, please do not merge or copy from 2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin during this AfD, per point 5 of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). Flatscan (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BornonJune8 copied content to History of Monday Night Football (Special:Diff/1131859878), so this article cannot be deleted normally, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD). WP:Merge and delete (essay) lists a few possible workarounds. Esolo5002 also labeled an edit as a copy, but it has the same text as their previous edit (Special:Diff/1131749210, Special:Diff/1131751754, contributions range) as noted by Fuzheado (Special:Diff/1131757968). Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's exactly this lack of good faith collaboration (that began with the ignoring of consensus to create this split, and then continual re-addition and copying of content) that gets us into unnecessary copyright entanglements. There is Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history meaning as long as we list the authors, we are still CC-BY-SA compliant. One could also undo the copy altogether, and write in a different summary version. In the end, one copy operation of this article's text should not be a blocker to any final decision in the realm of delete/merge/redirect. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this copy should not interfere, but it occurs rarely and guidance is lacking. A list of authors is sufficient per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors (guideline) and WP:Attribution does not require blame (essay). Reverting and revision deleting WP:Copyright violations is done under the RD1 copyright criterion, but whether this copy qualifies is unclear – I am aware of only one instance. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No redirect No one is going to search 2023 collapse of Damar Hanlin. They would probably search up Damar Hanlin, so it would be unnecessary to do a redirection. TomMasterRealTALK 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I don’t see a redirect in being harmful, we do have WP:CHEAP after all, and a redirect could enable search terms. I could see someone wishing to use this as a search term. This isn’t the same as the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astros's combined World Series no-hitter, where the name is grammatically incorrect, and it’s unfortunate a redirect from a more grammatically correct title couldn’t be produced, but in this case I see no need as to why we shouldn’t redirect. If, after some time, there seems to be no interest in a redirect, we have WP:RFD, then we can always delete it then. 68.197.135.166 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Redirects are cheap is linked from WP:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD, but it is an essay. WP:Redirects are costly is an opposing essay. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I see it is: is the redirect going to harm Wikipedia? The answer, I believe, is no. We’ve deleted redirects, like this one, for example, for redirecting to a deleted section. That is obviously not the case here. We’ve also deleted from grammatically incorrect titles. I don’t believe that this is grammatically incorrect, and would be quite upset if this was decided without going to WP:RFD. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the IP I am using (not my house IP) switched literally last night. I am the same IP as the one who made the vote. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per many above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on account of this being an unprecedented disruption of a professional football regulation game, with wide-reaching and well-sourced impacts spanning beyond Hamlin and the event. Attempting to merge/redirect would put great risk of placing undue weight upon this incident within the realm of Hamlin's entire life, or would require the exclusion of substantial amounts of relevant information. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is a precedent, as the only NFL player to die on the field of play was Chuck Hughes in 1971. In that case, there was not a standalone separate article. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But play continued in that case. This is, as far as I can tell, the only time a regulation game has been suspended after it began and not resumed the same calendar day. It's happened a few times in exhibitions and preseason contests, usually due to weather, but not in a game that counts. (Nor was Hughes's death, or the handful of American Football League fatalities in the early 1960s, a topic of national conversation or fodder for conspiracy theories.) If this game had continued, I would tend to agree that the topic could be covered on Hamlin's personal article, especially if he recovers. But this is notable more for the mid-game cancellation than the injury itself. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The phenomenon you mention are valid, but are actually follow-on effects of the injury and "collapse" that are documented in 2022 NFL season#Damar Hamlin cardiac arrest, List of canceled and rescheduled NFL games#2022 Week 17 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game, and other places. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep could anything be a more clear pass of WP:GNG?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This rationale is not particularly relevant though, as the issue is not notability. Rather, it's about Wikipedia:Splitting#When to split. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an editing issue and not a deletion issue. Any discussion about splitting should be held on the talk page and not in a deletion forum.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean like the discussion where there was overwhelming consensus not to split, yet somebody did it anyway? Talk:Damar Hamlin#Does the notoriety of this incident warrant a separate article?. We discussed it, someone ignored it, and you telling people to discuss it on a talkpage is therefore not a valid reason to keep. The onus should have been on the article creator to get consensus to split before doing it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it should be a non-controversial merge. Instead, we have this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because one set of folks is trying to engage in good faith collaboration and abide by best practices and policy, and another set are either very inexperienced, not trying, or invoking WP:IAR (Special:Diff/1131332435). - Fuzheado | Talk 16:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Exasperatingly) Keep: As annoying as it is that the creation of this article occurred despite the talk page discussion at Damar Hamlin, I must admit that this article has been expanded enough to stand on its own and has plenty of sources. Looking at WP:SPORTSEVENT, this was a routine game until the injury and suspension of play. Even now, the injury has caused a cascade of reverberations because of its timing: 'The NFL is considering moving the Patriots-Bills Week 18 game,' 'The NFL could make the game a no contest or make it a "Week 19" game,' 'The NFL is discussing if the Week 17 game should be resumed,' 'The NFL could push the postseason back a week.' Even outside of the schedules and playoffs, there are impacts related to bets on the game and potential impacts to future sporting events. Honestly, I think a wait and see approach to this article might be a good idea. This whole situation reminds me of the "2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game" article, where an article was created early, an AfD was launched, and then the impact from the play had repercussions that ended the referee lockout which resulted in the article remaining. Though, rather than a lockout, the issue this time is the playoffs. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This recommendation highlights that we may not be able to predict whether a reader is seeking Hamlin or the impact on the NFL season, especially if he recovers fully with no long-term issues. They would be best served by choosing among search results rather than a redirect to the "wrong" article. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We possibly could have a condensed version of a redirect to the NFL Playoff article. Maybe something shorter than "2023 Bills-Bengals postponed game impact to the 2022 NFL Playoffs" would work. (Granted, that is a bit outside this AfD.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion - In the event of a merge/delete, the sections of this article on 2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin#Television coverage and 2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin#NFL criticism would fit well within the scope of 2022 NFL season, as the impact of this event has repercussions for the schedules and playoffs for the rest of the teams. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. We are likely going to lose material one way or another, but that would reduce some of it. To me, the list of relevant articles is: 2022 Buffalo Bills season, 2022 Cincinnati Bengals season, 2022 NFL season, Buffalo Bills, Damar Hamlin, Joe Buck, List of canceled and rescheduled NFL games, List of NFL on ABC results, List of Monday Night Football results (2010–present), Tee Higgins. Quite a few of these would not be good candidates for merging stuff to, but some of them could work. Especially "List of canceled and rescheduled NFL games" given the most recent reporting by the AP. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I don't consider it to be too different if there is a AfD, followed by a requested move discussion or moving the article as a result of this AfD. I agree to either option. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse. While an unprecidented event in the sporting world, I don't see why it should be forked from the article on the player. It's WP:TOOSOON to make a determination of whether or not an independent article is deserved when all the encyclopdically relevant facts can be covered in the Damar Hamlin article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and an article shouldn't be made as simply a reponsitory of breaking news. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and redirect Either solution is fine by me, but this is not a necessary split from the main article on the person in question. All of the relevant information about the incident can more than comfortably contained in Hamlin's own biography, and there are not any WP:LENGTH or WP:UNDUE concerns that could not be overcome with normal editing of that article. There is no need to cover this information in its own article. I'm fine leaving a redirect behind, but I'm also fine not doing so. What we don't need is a stand-alone article on this. --Jayron32 05:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think it'll be sufficient to cover this incident in the Damar Hamlin article. --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was on the fence about this because of the favt that he's recovering well, however the impact that this has had on the rest of the league (and potentially in the coming weeks) will deserve its own article. There are now too many moving parts now as a dirext result of what happened. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering that the game just got cancelled by the NFL, it might be prudent to create an article about the game as a whole. It is an unprecedented cancellation of a game and there could be a massive controversy about playoff seeding unfolding as a result. Sewageboy (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - First off, titling this "2023 collapse..." implies that he had collapsed before, say in 2022, 2021, etc. This article should be merged into his own biography page. There is also the existence of List of canceled and rescheduled NFL games already to begin with. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While, yes, a unique and rare circumstance, I also agree with claims of page being made WP:TOOSOON. User who created this page also has a history with WP:RECENTISM and sports articles with no real notability. MushroomMan674 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that second point out. I think that says a lot about this page to begin with. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and Redirect Definitely too soon to make this a separate article, the incident only happened 3 days prior. It's definitely possible that future developments could result in the article warranting creation, but what's on Damar Hamlin should definitely suffice for now, we should continue focusing on that, and expanding it, rather than start creating forks for these situations. I also think the title "2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin" is an unlikely search title, but we do note that redirects are cheap, so I'm not opposed to the redirect option. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 04:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2022 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game, otherwise delete — SIGCOV for the game itself, especially its cancellation, but otherwise nothing burger. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I maintain my above opposition to this page, the proper rename would be 2022 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game based on precedent to use the season year rather than the calendar year for games played in January (such as 2018 NFC Championship Game). Frank Anchor 16:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to 2023 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game – The rename is absolutely necessary, but this article needs to be kept. The amount of coverage this game received was substantial, becoming global news in fact, and is undoubtably one of the most unique games in NFL history, as an NFL game has, to my knowledge, never been postponed and then declared a No Contest as a result of a mid-game injury. It absolutely fits the notability guidelines and will stand the test of time. Aria1561 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, a good alternative is to put much of the content in the 2022 NFL season article. Most (if not all) of the extra commentary about the aftermath of Hamlin's injury is not about the game itself, but how the NFL has had to react to the aftermath in terms of scheduling, playoff implications, and all the downstream repercussions. There is not much to be gained by diving into hyper-detail about one game given how little of it actually occurred and the noteworthy part was one tackle/injury. Therefore, I'd question the wisdom in diving into a dedicated article. Redirect, sure. Rename for a full blown article treatment, no. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most (if not all) of the extra commentary about the aftermath of Hamlin's injury is not about the game itself, but how the NFL has had to react to the aftermath in terms of scheduling, playoff implications, and all the downstream repercussions. That's the problem. It isn't just Hamlin's injury, but the impact of the missing game. Do we need a standalone article about his injury? No, we didn't. Do we need a standalone article about the 'No Contest' game? I say that it does at this point. The main problem has been that the article was created against input from the community and discussing an alternative has been very painful, which is why most of the discussion above has focused on the fact that this was split off from the Hamlin article against consensus not to have a standalone article on the injury. What I think is not being considered enough is the impact of this missing game. For a game that was not played, there has been article after article on the game being cancelled. There are multiple articles on this being a rare or unprecedented decision. There are plenty of articles regarding the changes to the playoff rules. There are articles for ticket refunds, for wager refunds and payouts, and even fantasy football. Covering policy, we have a notable event that has a diverse number of sources and that prompted change. Sources have taken an indepth look at both the non-routine events that happened that day and the unique situation of the cancelation. In my viewpoint, the major policy against this article is Wikipedia:CORRECTSPLIT and the main problem is that one of the steps was not followed at the time of the AfD and has apparently been resolved. As you have said, the article name is a problem, so a redirect doesn't help. Nor does a merge when Wikipedia:NOTMERGE is considered. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aria1561, shortly after your comment you boldly moved the page to a game-specific title (Special:Diff/1131887688). Please don't do that. It is considered poor form to move an article when it is actively being discussed at AfD and there is no consensus for a rename. @Super Goku V has since moved it back. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you opposing a redirect as well? 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Please don't keep spreading links to this article across Wikipedia while it is at AfD, and especially when it is trending towards being deleted/merged. More elaboration on the reasons can be found here: Talk:Damar Hamlin#Please stop adding Main or Seealso template here - Fuzheado | Talk 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Event has received enormous levels coverage (including from major national news sources, for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 articles from the New York Times) and is I believe (with the possible exception of a few 1920s/30s games) the only time a game has not been finished in NFL history. I'd say this is notable enough for a standalone article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned earlier, the issue isn't notability, it's about WP:SPLITTING. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no redirect A redirect is most likely not needed as it is unlikely that anyone will search for "2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin" and will also just search for Damar Hamlin. Additionally, this may be too big of a case of WP:RECENTISM to warrant its only article at this time. Obviously, it is applicable on Hamlin's page. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The arguments against a redirect make almost zero sense. It is extremely reasonable to have a redirect of [Year] [Event] point to a section in a biography that explicitly covers that event. I find it likely that this will show to be a notable event with lasting significance, but I'm a bit hesitant as to whether to keep or merge at this time for reasons of WP:NOPAGE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which arguments in particular? Lamona mentioned (Special:Diff/1131429979) WP:AT (WP:Article titles, policy) when objecting to the name. I'm not familiar enough with that policy to know how much it applies to redirects, but it mentions them several times. Fuzheado posted criticism of the title at Talk:Damar Hamlin#Please stop adding Main or Seealso template here (Special:Diff/1131942429), citing WP:NCEVENTS (WP:Naming conventions (events), guideline), WP:NOYEAR (NOYEAR anchor in the same guideline), and WP:COMMONNAME (WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names). Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per FrankAnchor. Other than a Super Bowl, the incident has garnered more widespread coverage in mainstream media outlets (and not just on the sports pages) than any NFL-related event perhaps since Tom Brady's Deflategate scandal. It also seems highly likely that the incident will receive enduring coverage. That said, and given that we are still only one week out from the incident, the article might benefit from being developed/incubated in draft space. In a couple months, we can evaluate more fully the enduring importance of the event. That seems like a reasonable compromise and preferable to deletion or redirection. Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as of now, there is nothing I know of to warrant a separate article. If that changes, an article can be written then. BostonMensa (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BostonMensa: are you opposing a redirect as well? 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without any links, the page has received 414 views since it was created a week ago. That means people must be searching for the article title, meaning it is clearly a useful redirect term. As such, it is even clearer now that it shouldn’t be totally deleted, and anyone who says “no one will search for this” is wrong, as over 400 people have. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 740+ could view an unlinked article on whether people in NYC prefer Coke or Pepsi but the number of views in amd of itself doesn’t mean it is a notable subject for wiki.
    BostonMensa (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2023 (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/2023_collapse_of_Damar_Hamlin&oldid=1132932217"