Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN College Football on ABC results

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 October 8. The result of the deletion review was no consensus to overturn.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Sandstein 19:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN College Football on ABC results[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT T v x1 12:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the games are notable, but the topic itself is not notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. WP:NOT; (WP:NOTTVGUIDE also). Eagleash (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly as notable as any other television series. This one happens to be about sports.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per above. With regards to @Paulmcdonald:, yes, the series itself is notable, and we have an article for it, but the results of each individual game are not notable enough for an article. Generally for routine sports broadcasts, we have one article for the main subject NFL on CBS, Fox Major League Baseball, etc. but there's absolutely no need to have a list of results for every single game. It's WP:LISTCRUFT at best. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' the contents of the list are just fine. If they're deleted in this article, they'll simply be transferred to the main article. The main article will then become unwieldy and more difficult to read, use, and maintain. Keeping a separate list article is a good option in this case. Further, list of episodes of television shows is quite common. As to the "results of each individual game being notable" this is not a bulk nomination of a large number of articles, each article on one individual game but is instead one article covering the results of all of them. List articles exist for just this very reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No the contents is not just fine. There is absolutely no need to tabulate the results of every college football game broadcasted on TV. Neither in a dedicated article, nor as part of a parent article. It would not be moved upon deletion of this article but outright deleted. Football games, be it college or NFL, are primarily what they're called, football games, and not TV shows. Notable and/or historically significant results are mentioned in team and season articles. Wikipedia is not a directory of every broadcast of sports games. T v x1 17:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Networks devote one each week during the season to say an individual television broadcast of a on particular sporting event such as a college football game. So technically, they are television shows (and not just a one time, annual special event like the Academy Awards), just not of the scripted quality (in essence, the games themselves are episodes just like any other TV series that has its own individual article). I guess, by extension, something like say Meet the Press isn't really a TV show since it covers real life political events. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are not television Shows because they are not programs created and produced by one particular broadcaster. They are simply coverage of sports events. Sports event which are broadcasted by multiple tv stations all over the world. Not to mention tens of thousand of fans attending the live games. So why list the results of games transmitted by just one of the many broadcasters? The important result are mentioned where they belong: in teams' and season articles. T v x1 20:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by your logic, weekly scheduled coverage of sporting events like Hockey Night in Canada isn't really true "television show" (which the networks mind you, may millions if not billions of dollars in rights fees) nor is Monday Night Football/Sunday Night Football, etc. even though they have a regular timeslot like any other program? And why should the thousands of fans attending live games negate this point? More people are likely watching them on television (if they can't afford a ticket or aren't year the city) than they are attending them in person. I guess, while you're at it, you might as well say the same thing about sitcoms that are "filmed in front of a live studio audience" or game shows like The Price is Right that have a big studio audience. And even if the sports events like say Monday Night Football are broadcast by multiple TV stations all over the world, that doesn't change the fact that the game results/stats are ultimately what they are. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: you're saying because of all the coverage it gets all over the world it's not notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No completely wrong. I'm saying that because of all the coverage it gets all over the world it's utterly inappropriate to have a results lists of the games shown by one US broadcaster. Sports results should be tied to teams and leagues, not broadcasters. T v x1 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the article in question is about college football games that were broadcast by ABC (the American Broadcasting Company). It isn't exactly a generic article that isn't devoted to a sole broadcaster. I guess by extension, there shouldn't be an article that covers the program itself, since people all over the world watch college football every week regardless of what network its own or originates from. I also guess by extension, that there shouldn't be articles that list television series by network (e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) since, people outside of the country can access them. And again, sports results like wins and losses and nationally televised appearances on one particular television network for any given week, are too separate entities. BornonJune8 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's "completely wrong" ?? It seems like I've asked you to clarify your position, then you've said that's an incorrect assessment and then repeated it back to me. "Do you mean 'XXX'?" "No, I menat 'XXX'"--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't bother to post meaningful replies I won't either. I've clarified above. T v x1 09:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm letting you know that I find your argument to be very confusing and would like more clarification. Wikipedia:Confusing arguments mean nothing. Perhaps the closer of the discussion will get it, but I think you'll be taking a chance on that. You might be right and I might be wrong, but we'll never come to an agreement if I don't understand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. One-eyed horse thieves in Montana would be offended to be left out if trash like this were kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How do you think this violates WP:SALAT? Please provide reason, just saying it doesn't make it so (I've typed that in AFD twice today...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Lists that are too specific are also a problem." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I absolutely don't understand that type of rationale or argument. If lists that are "too specific" a problem, then what are they supposed to look like or be about exactly? BornonJune8 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something other than games produced by one particular entity and broadcast on one particular network. Doesn't that sound the least bit arbitrary? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not violate NOT, no convincing reason for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean not convincing reason has been provided for deletion? Did you even read the above delete comments. I think we should leave these conclusions for the admin who will close the discussion. Can you provide any convincing reason why we should keep a list of all football games shown during specific coverage? Remind you, wikipedia is not a NFL fan site. Tvx1 09:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please be careful to avoid any statement that may be considered a personal attack. We can all have confidence that the closing admin will make a balanced decision to determine consensus. And if not, we can take it to WP:DRV. Editors can contribute to the discussion as they see fit. If you'd like more details or explanation, please ask for them. If they are not provided, that's something that a good closer will consider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT and the argument made by User:Tvx1 above. If the argument to keep is that this is a TV show with "episodes" like a standard show, then we would need a list for Match of the Day as an example. It's not an encyclopedic article, and any significant games either have their own article, or are linked on the corresponding article for that team or season. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never got an explanation how WP:SALAT applies. Maybe you can explain it. As for WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, that is listed as an "empty argument" in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's not that it's right or wrong, it's just--WHY is it "unencyclopedic"?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would anyone have to justify themselves to you personally??Tvx1 10:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still haven't gotten an explanation how WP:SALAT applies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because this list's subject is not an appropriate one as outlined by WP:SALAT. T v x1 10:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And I still haven't gotten an explanation how WP:SALAT applies. This is a discussion. If you believe something fails a measure of any kind, it is your duty to explain why you believe that. Otherwise, it's just a non-argument per WP:JUSTAPOLICY and should be ignored.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This list's topic doesn't not constitute one outlined by WP:SALAT as an appropriate one. How difficult is it grasp that? T v x1 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's extremely difficult because you are not providing a specific answer. For example: this is not a list of people. It is not a list of companies and organizations. It is not a list of lists. It is not a list of words. These are the four specifics under WP:SALAT as I read it, and this particular list we are discussing is none of those. Therefore, in my eyes WP:SALAT does not even apply. Are you making the argument that you believe that only those four types of lists named in WP:SALAT are the only types of lists we can include on Wikipedia? Or perhaps you are arguing that you believe this article is either to broad or too narrow... I don't know. And until you make it clear, neither will anyone else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I'm a little less convinced on this one, but I don't like how the nominator neglected to explain in his nomination statement how this article violates WP:NOT. It is the nominator's job to do the legwork in gathering evidence to demonstrate why the article should be deleted. He did not do that. How are we supposed to evaluate the nom's argument if all we are given is "Per WP:NOT". Per what part of WP:NOT? How does that part apply? Also, I am not impressed by the nom's effort to silence a keep !voter, especially since the !voter in question, unlike the nom, had the courtesy to do more than merely link a policy and make a vague claim. Lepricavark (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Changed to full keep upon further review as there are still no valid grounds for deletion. It is very disappointing that some editors are still supporting deletion on grounds that have already been thoroughly debunked. Lepricavark (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Regardless, not only the nominator's arguments are taken into account open closure of the discussion. They review the arguments of all participants. T v x1 17:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's incredibly lazy for a nominator to attempt to erase an article, which in this case probably contains hours of work done by other people, without even providing a good reason. I'm not so sure that the TVGuide argument applies here. To me, TV Guides are for upcoming episodes, not ones that have already aired. Otherwise, you have a lot more articles to propose for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From point 4:historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. In this case however I cannot see the historical signifance of said programming. And regarding your first concern, WP:LOSE T v x1 07:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this AFD (and currently in others) you have argued that other editors that we should "leave these conclusions for the admin who will close the discussion" but here you making a conclusion in your assessment. Doesn't seem fair to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what part of my reply contains a conclusion/analysis of the other parties' arguments?? The other contributor's post contained that person's analysis of all the delete contributors' arguments. That's what I replied to back then. T v x1 15:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be your comment "I cannot see the historical signifance of said programming" --Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying "I cannot see the historical significance...." just screams of personal preference (and not something that could benefit any other "curious" reader or dare I say "history buff") regarding a sport and its accompanying live television series that you likely don't follow, understand or care much about. BornonJune8 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if I can see the historical significance? WP:LOSE (which is an essay, not a guideline or policy) states "It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines." That doesn't apply in this instance. If you are going to put someone else's work up for deletion, you should have a good reason. You don't. Lepricavark (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:NOT#INFO Prevan (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Also delete Category:College football on television results. BigGuy88 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the information is worthy of inclusion in the main article ESPN College Football on ABC, but the list is very large so it makes sense to have a separate list article just for the results. By placing the statistics in a table format with additional information, the article actually meets the requirements set forth in WP:NOT#INFO/WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (which are two different shortcuts referencing the same policy).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia isn't a T.V. guide. If it's kept, remove the "time" column. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, being an indiscriminate collection of information and a TV guide. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response the two comments above argue that Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. That's true, but it doesn't apply. These events occur in the past, not the future. No one would come to this page in Wikipedia to look up information on upcoming games, only on past ones. Secondly, it most certainly is a WP:DISCRIMINATE list of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The show is notable; its proceedings are not independently notable. FalconK (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I went back-and-forth on this a lot. Given that A) the show is notable and B) the games in question are often notable (lots of coverage etc.) the list article is probably justified. I'd actually like to see it grow and have some actual meaningful coverage of the games or important milestones of the show. But... even as a football fan, I can't really see who would ever _want_ this information as-is and I fully understand the WP:NOT arguments as this feels, as written, like a WP:NOT violation. But expansion is possible and it's not a WP:TNT case. Only issue with expansion is size. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2016 (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.