Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State football 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State football game

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. This game's sole claim to fame is that it was the first Big 12 Conference sports event ever staged, not anything that actually occurred during the game. It's trivia, and to the extent it's worthy content for Wikipedia, it should be included where our readers are likely to find it -- the parent articles about the conference and the seasons of the individual teams (see Big 12 Conference, 1996 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team and 1996 Kansas State Wildcats football team). For these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted, after including a one-sentence mention in the foregoing articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - FYI, I have added mentions of this game as the first-ever Big 12 game played to the Big 12 Conference and 1996 Texas Tech season articles. The 1996 Kansas State season article already included a mention of it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep these so-called "established precedents" and "consensus" go against previous history and are nothing more than the opinions of a few editors. To that, the game clearly passes WP:GNG and the coverage is far beyond the WP:ROUTINE guideline as coverage is more than just sports scores and announcements of the game but provides the detail demanded (see essay WP:NOTROUTINE).  As to the "Trivia" argument, that is not a reason to delete see WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE and WP:TRIVIAL specifically.  The article is well sourced in reliable sources, it is more than just routine box scores, has widespread coverage, and by any measure available passes the general notability guideline.  Nominator has a recent pattern of bias against articles about regular season games.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul, I am not suggesting that the "first-ever Big 12 game" information be deleted from Wikipedia; I am suggesting that the information be included in articles where our readers will actually find it, read it and appreciate it. WP:CFB has had these debates many times before.  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.  As for the "opinions of a few editors," it's a widely held consensus opinion that until very recently you shared.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * there have been other single-game articles that have been deleted that passed WP:GNG because of this clear over-reaching of WP:ROUTINE? Where?  They should be restored immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul, you cite an essay, WP:NOTROUTINE (not policy, not a guideline) written by yourself, and then you disparage the consensus interpretation of the actual guideline. Is it or is not the established consensus to discourage stand-alone articles about regular season games, and to incorporate that game content into season articles and rivalry articles?  Please state your position.
 * 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 should 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.  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.
 * I don't believe you have that consensus as you claim. If you do, the proper procedure would be to go to WP:ROUTINE with that consensus and modify the definition to be more than "sports scores" for routine reporting.  Then you can have that more broadly defined definition and can roll it out into AFD.  AFD is not the place to build consensus, AFD is the place to take consensus once it has been clearly and fully established.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * But what matters is how WP:ROUTINE defines itself, not how other people choose to apply it. If that application is well beyond the reach of its self-definition, then it is a mis-application.  That's what is happening here.  The Routine guideline specifically states that routine articles for sporting events are "sports scores" and not "unique feature articles about a sporting event" -- and that's the failure of the application.  If you really have consensus that "unique feature articles about a sporting event" are routine, then you should go to the Routine guideline, build consensus there, and modify the written guideline.  Then come back here and delete single game articles to your heart's content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if the nominator has a "bias against articles about regular season games," then it is a "bias" that is shared by a majority of our fellow WP:CFB editors. I suggest you drop that line of attack, and not make further comments that might be characterized as personalizing these AfD discussions.  Attacking the messenger is not going to win the argument, especially when the messenger is a prolific creator of CFB content.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not observed any other editors express a bias. However, I have observed some on your part such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) where you posted "bundling AfDs is always a high-risk proposition" or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football where you posted "we do not permit stand-alone articles for regular season single games" - you did later strike out "do not permit" and replaced with "discourage" after I suggested "we do not encourage" -- these two show a bias towards the idea of deleting single game articles rather than being open to other ideas.  I don't think it's "mean" or anything, but it speaks to the idea that your mind is already made up.  Also, because you haven't responded to my repeatedly pointing out that WP:ROUTINE specifically limits itself to "sports scores" for routine coverage leads me to believe that you are ignoring relevant issues in this discussion to be partial to your own opinion.  That's a "bias" I'm sad to say.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oooh a reading assignment! (Oh, and I pointed out tat WP: NOTROUTINE is an essay, and yeah I wrote it, and I point out WP:QUOTEYOURSELF which I also wrote).

--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) GNG is not a guarantee.  Agreed.  But it's also not a disqualification.
 * WP:SPORTSEVENT -- a guideline, with a lot of discussion and dissention even on its history. It's interesting and worth a look!  But it also speaks to sources "outside routine coverage" and remember routine is specifically defined as "sports scores" so this actually is passed by the feature articles.
 * 1) Routine only applies to listings of sports scores.  WP:WABBITSEASON.
 * 2) WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE probably the "meatiest" argument presented.  However, it doesn't define what a "short news cycle" is and it can reasonably be presumed that most if not all of the games are also mentioned through the remainder of the season, in season summaries, and in future year's lookbacks.  Plus, it says "likely not suitable" and states further "that an event occured recently does not in itself make it non-notable"
 * Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football.  Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Resolute 14:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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) 14:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the nominator, I object to the proposal, however well intended, to combine this AfD and any others pending 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 muddled when it includes multiple articles.  Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable regular season college football game. Article does not say why game is notable and I only see WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Response/article does not say why notable That would be the phrase "The game marks the first athletic competition of any type for the Big 12 Conference."--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete 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) 21:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ordinary college football game, reckoned as the "first" in the history of the Big 12 by a fluke of scheduling. This makes it a trivia answer, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.