Talk:2015 Lions–Cowboys officiating controversy

Recentism
Although I was not the one who originally tagged it as such, as it stands, this stand-alone article appears to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Unless there is a rule change in the offseason or future long-term "NFL lore" significance (such as "Fail Mary", which led to a resolution in the referee labor dispute), we might have to think about in the future about doing a WP:10 year test-type cleanup and merge this into the corresponding NFL referee article (Pete Morelli) and/or 2014-15 NFL playoffs. Per WP:GNG, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" (emphasis added). Consensus may later determine that it does indeed violate WP:NOTNEWS. Stripping all the reactions and news reports, the gist of this stand-alone article could easily be merged into Pete Morelli and/or 2014-15 NFL playoffs. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It may take some time to detirme if this event has any lasting effcect. I would think the main article to merge this in would be 2014-15 NFL playoffs with mentions also in 2014 Detroit Lions season, 2014 Dallas Cowboys season & Pete Morelli, Rehnn83 Talk 12:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Rehnn83: You should leave a couple reactions, as writing "widely decryed as incorrect" fails to summarize the sheer amount of negativity the call received. Pete Morelli's main quote, which was also deleted, is instrumental in describing the call's importance and the attention it brought to officiating errors. Temple of the Mousy (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Temple of the Mousy I'm happy for a better worded sentence, but there doesn't need to be a whole section dedicated to the reaction. Wikipedia is not a collection or summariser of news stories. It's not appropriate to summarise all the criticism. I think the phrase "widely decryed as inocorrect" summarises the coverage of the incident (and is supported by the cited sources) i.e. Many, many sources have stated the call is incorrect. I don't feel there's a need for anything further. Rehnn83 Talk 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it no surprise that, as of now, nobody has yet touched the DYK nomination for this article with a ten-foot pole. The alternate hook is just the typical "reaction from " you find in tabloid journalism, which is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. In addition, the first hook gives the false impression that the controversy directly prevented the Lions from winning. The call may have contributed to that, but a case could also be made that it was also the Detroit defense (which was ranked as one of the top defenses in the league) failed to do its job to prevent the Cowboys from driving down the field for that winning score. As stated in this USA Today article, "The bottom line is there was still time for the Lions to make a play – but they didn't, which is why they're going home". Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The importance of the call is purely opinion-based. Many articles about the officiating controversy tend to be biased and one-sided, as the writer may be a supporter of one of the teams involved. For this reason and the one Zzyzx11 included about the celebrity reactions, I am hoping the DYK nomination for this article will be taken down or closed. Temple of the Mousy (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)