Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Louisville vs. West Virginia 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.  Majorly  (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2005 Louisville vs. West Virginia football game

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

nn college football game, nothing special of this game compared to thousands, wikipedia isn't a sports game guide Delete Jaranda wat's sup 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N and the fact that Wikipedia is not a collection of news or statistics.  -- B figura  (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bfigura. - Nascentatheist 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep its a good article--Zingostar 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good article isn't a valid reason for keeping Jaranda wat's sup 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've given no valid reason for deletion. This article violates no Wikipedia policies.  The burden is on you to prove it must be deleted according to policy. Johntex\talk 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean other than that whole thing about not being a news site or indiscriminate collection of info? I remember this season - this was a good game; I listened to it on the radio. But it was no more notable than probably 50 other games this season. The Evil Spartan 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing indiscriminate about this article. It provides plenty of information to show why the game was important to the teams, what records were set, etc. Please look more closely and don't expect every article on Wikipedia to be about the single most important thing in the world.  Viscount Hawarden is a very minor peerage in the UK, yet a good article on it is perfectly justifiable here since we have plenty of paper.  Same with a well-written article about this game. Johntex\talk 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, I fail to see much historic notability in this game and I really feel like most of these game recaps are more appropriate for WikiNews Corpx 00:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a news site. The Evil Spartan 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I've got to say delete here at least for now. It in no way establishes notability with a reliable source (it even sources a wikipedia page which is a big no-no). I don't think automatically that a game is not-notable, but this one gives no reason for its notability. Phydend 05:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable enough -- Roleplayer 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Individual college football games meet the notability requirements and should be kept if they are well-written. Please see 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game and 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game for two similar articles that have reached Good Article status.'''
 * There is no reason under policy to justify deleting this article. And there are many reasons to keep it; these include:
 * These article do NOT simply duplicate what is available elsewhere. We can bring together facts from multiple sources.  For instance, the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.
 * We can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with.
 * We can aid the reader with informative links to related topics, such as terms used in college football. No news source does that, not even online news sources.
 * Unlike some on-line newspapers, access to our stories will always be free of charge, so long as we don't delete them.
 * Many of our articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.
 * Thank you, Johntex\talk 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain where individual football games meet the notabilty requirements, also you are giving reasons for supporting the article to go to wikinews not here. Jaranda wat's sup 00:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:N - "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - This article passes that test and should be kept. Johntex\talk 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Every D1 football game passes the bar for notability, but it is the WP:NOT#NEWS that is the issue.  The reasons you provided tells me that this is appropriate for WikiNews.  Corpx 03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we should have an article on every division 1 game out there? Like that Northwestern-Northeaster blowout last week? We need to create a guideline for this as the Wikiproject. The Evil Spartan 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Every D1 football game complies with policy to be kept here. There is no reason to consider moving it to wikinews because they do not violate policy here.  Talking about moving them to wikinews is wasting time trying to solve a problem that does not exist.  These are encyclopedia articles, not news stories. They sometimes take weeks or longer to fully create.  They have not news announcements in any fashion. Johntex\talk 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misreading WP:N. Just because it has sources doesn't indicate instant notabilty. A car accident that killed an average person has sources, that doesn't indicate it's notable, same with games. It needs to have sources indicating the notabilty of the game or the event, which this hasn't. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 23:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The references in the article provide plenty of notability for the article. It was the biggest comeback for the Mountaineers in more than a decade.  It was also the second most points the team had ever scored.  It was an instrumental win for them in terms of winning the conference.  Steve Slaton set a school record for touchdown passes, etc.
 * There is no valid comparison between this and something like a car wreck, which is forgotten almost immediately by all but the families involved.
 * You are also mistaken about the need for an article to loudly proclaim some special event in order to be included on Wikipedia. Go look at almost any article on a secondary school or primary school on Wikipedia.  There is nothing in most of those articles to claim the school has set any record, or been at the top of any list.  The same is true of most articles on small towns like Coleman, Texas or Capel St. Mary in the UK.  The Beas River sets no worldwide records.  It is not even one of the biggest rivers in India, yet we have an article on it.  Wikipedia strives for completeness.  In order to give a balanced view of the world, we have to include things that are not the biggest and best or most widely known of their category. Johntex\talk 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "biggest comeback for the Mountaineers in more than a decade".  If you nitpick enough in any football game, you'll find some sort of minute record being set/broken, but that's not historic notability.   Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Corpx 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS provides no reason for deleting anything. It is a straw man argument.  WP:N is what matters.  It says, "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  This topic has multiple independent sources and it is presumed to be notable. Johntex\talk 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Simply not notable enough. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important game in the history of the Big East, which was still recovering for the ACC exodus. --Bobak 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oh good God. Fails notability. I think logic analogous to WP:BLP1E should apply to sports games. An article about a whole rivalry (with reliable sources) might be appropriate, and would support a merge into such an article if one wants to create it. I therefore would support a future undelete for any enterprising editor who wants to document this apparent Louisville v. West Virginia legacy. Cool Hand Luke 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article doesn't even do a good job of covering the game. It makes no mention of how controversial the onside kick call was, or that Big East officials issued a retraction saying how badly they screwed it up. But NPOV issues aside, we don't need 60 new articles a week during the D-1 NCAA football season which summarize ESPN.com. shoy  19:00, 5 September 2007 (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.