Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame 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 and redirect to new article on the 2005 flag planting meme itself, instead. FT2 (Talk 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article centers around whether a football game where one side planted a flag after the game, leading to a rash of flag-planting incidents, a practice later banned by various governing bodies, is itself notable. It is important that in this case, the game per se is not necessarily what is being alleged to be notable. Rather, it is the actions after it, and the football-game meme they led to.

A number of arguments do not support established policies:


 * 1) "Wikipedia covers historical events" - but not all of them. Not an argument
 * 2) Benefits that Wikipedia listing can offer people researching this game (Johntex) - see WP:USEFUL, utility is not the agreed criterion for creating an article,
 * 3) "Well written, deserves to be here more than some other article" - Writing quality and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are also not good arguments, many articles of excellent quality have been removed because they are not suitable content and many will be in future
 * 4) "Notable in Notre Dame football history" - a reason to mention it in that article, not to have a separate article for it. Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED, that the team are notable does not make games in their history independently notable.
 * 5) "Used as precendent in many other games by many teams as a lesson in what not to do" - so are a vast number of games, lessons, books, incidents, training days, etc. Not an argument unless actual, verifiable and pretty significant (most games are "used as a precedent" or lesson), unevidenced at AFD, see WP:OR.
 * 6) "Many have argued that this game, while a team victory, goes to the heart of....." Many would say that (at this point in time), this is more a personal view of an editor, rather than actual cited evidence that the game was significant according to a reliable source, again. (Present status: WP:OR.)
 * 7) "A well publicized game that week, as soon as I saw the image in the article, I remembered the game" -  - this references publicity and editor's memory. Other games are publicized, many editor's are not in the USA or don't watch football. In either case this argument is basically personal affirmation of opinion (WP:OR), adds nothing to evidence already in the article or presented at AFD.
 * 8) "Individual college football games meet the notability requirements and should be kept if they are well-written. Please see (examples)." - Disagree with this as a generalization, though it may be true in specific cases. Not every game is likely to be notable; per WP:NOT, there is an element of discrimination involved in judging where to draw the line in any topic area, and there is certainly far from any consensus that every college game is inherently notable for article purposes. (Example: one of the two games quoted is notable not as a college game at random; it is notable for being "considered by college football coaches to be one of the three greatest rivalry games in college football" according to reliable sources.)
 * 9) "Just because it has sources doesn't indicate instant notabilty" and "WP:N is not the one source ticket to notability. Lots of things with notability are excluded from Wikipedia by policies ... Note that WP:N is a guideline, while the others are policy" (Jaranda, Corpx) - I concur. WP:NOT implies discrimination, the criteria of WP:N are a basis to establish notability,. but matters where newspapers do not discriminate (every football game almost, however small, is reported somewhere), should not be indiscriminately listed as a result.

There is one cogent "keep" view for the game itself, that "in order to cover the subject completely, we need to cover topics such as this: National championship affecting games, top-ranked teams games, seasons, coaches, etc. This is not indiscriminate, and we can afford to cover topics like this deeper because we are not paper."

Yes and no. Yes it's not paper, but no there is no inherent need to cover suich matters. Each article on a game, team, season and coach etc is evaluated on its own merits. That is the communal view at AFD. Problematically in this AFD, no evidence supporting any significant notability whatsoever of the game itself has been submitted, whether in the article, or at AFD, by any AFD contributor, except for one thing: the flag planting incident. For all that some have stated this game impacted on the sport or taught people lessons, there is actually no evidence of substantial facts which make this game much more notable than others, nor does the article itself evidence this. In fact it's the reverse, the article itself states that "However, it was the events that took place after the game that many remember". The only specifics referenced were a boast (which happens in many, many games).... and the flag planting incident after.

Also note that
 * "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article" (WP:NOT)


 * "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone [?or something] has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." (WP:BLP, similar statement in the context of biographies)

On the basis of this AFD, it seems that based on policy related points, this game is not in fact notable (or no evidence is submitted). It is entirely the flag planting incident which is notable. This is also supported by consensus -- a rather large majority of strong delete views, most of which take the view that the game per se is not notable as well. These seem to be the views of both AFD contributors, and AFD policy related points. I concur.

THAT SAID..... In this case I think there can be no doubt that the flag planting aspect, as a football trend and meme, was notable. It spread through several major games, was reported in several news media, discussed popularly, and was ultimately banned by two bodies in the football world per the article.

There is a distinction already in place in biographical articles, where the article on a person who came to public attention for one incident is usually handled by redirection to an article on that event rather than outright deletion. Likewise this game seems notable for nothing especially, except that it was at this game (rather than some other) that this meme started.

So there is actually a third option to this AFD: "Should the article on the game be redirected to an article on the flag planting craze itself, from first occurrence to eventual banning?" And I believe this is the result that best respects the comments at this AFD, as well as the broader community views on notability. There was something notable (in Wikipedia terms) that day. It just wasn't the game itself.


 * Article has been copied to user space, at User:AStudent/2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame football game (its creator), to allow its use as source material for that article if editors wish.

2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame football game

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was a great game. I watched it. But it's not notable of its own article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a newsservice, or an indescriminate collection of information (e.g., information on every big football game that ever happened). This game doesn't stand out any more than perhaps dozens of other games in the 2005 football season. The Evil Spartan 05:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It was a great game (I was there), but I'm not sure about the notability of this one. It was a big deal for awhile I guess, but the sources don't support its notability past a few weeks. A few of the references (the random blog) isn't reliable and the most of the others aren't even about the game but other events. I say merge any relevant information into 2005 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team and an MSU one if it is ever created and delete. Phydend 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Really, I fail to see any historic notability for this one.  Again, these games are covered by multiple reliable sources and articles like this are essentially trying to collect this information.   This is really what WikiNews is for.   I realize a transwiki is not possible, but I really feel like we should stop this practice and move it to wikinews Corpx 05:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How could it be moved to wikinews when, as you yourself point out, the licenses are not compatible? Why would we talk about moving an encyclopedia article on a two-year old event over to a news site?  Surely it is not news at this point but a historical event, which is part of what an encyclopedia covers. Johntex\talk 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't warrant own article. Merge relevant content to appropriate article. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "delete" implies removing the content, not merging it. Also, a merge means that the information potentially has to be duplicated into each team article.  That is not as efficient as keeping it in one place. Johntex\talk 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom, and Corpx, who's bright idea was it to make Wikinews and Wikipedia have incompatible licensing? IvoShandor 11:13, 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 00:16, 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 (especially #3, #4, and #5) not here. Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 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 21:49, 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 article hasn't, Delete Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The references in the article provide plenty of notability for the article. The flag-planting incident, for instance, touches on topics of sportsmanship that go beyond this single game.
 * 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)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Those articles existing does not mean this one should.   An encyclopedia is not the place for sporting event recaps.   I really do not see the flag planting incident as being sufficient to qualify as "historic notability" Corpx 18:48, 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 18:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:N is not the one source ticket to notability.   Lots of things with notability are excluded from Wikipedia by policies like WP:NOT and WP:BLP.   Note that WP:N is a guideline, while the others are policy.  If you do not think those secondary schools should be on Wikipedia, nominate them for deletion, not use them as a reason to keep this one Corpx 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * These are straw man arguments. This article does not violate anything in WP:BLP or WP:NOT.  If it did, someone would have quoted the exact policy this violates.  Pretty blue links are not persuasive arguments for deletion. Johntex\talk 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is a regular season game like a billion others.--JForget 02:11, 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 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Indiscriminate non-notable collection of information. Kariteh 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Why the need for this game to have it's own page?  There was a night game a couple years ago between Utah and Wyoming that was played with only a handful of lights on.  Can that have its own page?  No!  LightningOffense 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Only a handful of 'real' information is included in this article. I think one possibility is to add some of the more important parts into one of the schools (or both) wiki pages. I just honestly don't see the need for this article. If this game is allowed it's own page, then every game, every week deserves to have a page too. LightningOffense 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is well developed and referenced. This article deserves to be here moreso than say Fire department rehab, which while unrelated, is an article with zero notability, unreferenced, uses the shortened version of a name in the title and is US-centric. This game was notable in Notre Dame football history and was used as precendent in many other games by many teams as a lesson in what not to do over the last three years. Many have argued that this game, while a team victory, goes to the heart of why Michigan State had lost its luster and was a part of the reason that John L. Smith lost hids job. --Daysleeper47 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and can you proof that it's the reason he lost his job (not that it matters for the article to stay or not) Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:48, 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 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again like I said before, It needs to have sources indicating the notabilty of the game or the event, which this article hasn't. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has seven in-line sources that show why the game was notable. That is more than Aardvark or Zebra. The fact that you may not be a sports fan or a history student interested in these schools or the game of college football has no bearing on whether others will be interested in an informative encyclopedia article.  This article complies with all the five pillars.  This article violates no policy and there is nothing that compels its deletion.  Johntex\talk 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am interested in college football, don't get me wrong, does the seven sources indicate notabilty anything about why the game is notable though. (sources 2, 5 and 6 doesn't meet WP:RS anyways and several others were trivial) also stop comparing this article to the article about zebras, as an admin you should know better. WP:ATA is a guideline that is used alot in deletion debates, and that admins use to decide AFDs. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your link to WP:ATA is not meaningful. We can both make pretty blue links to policies, guidelines, whatever.  WP:ATA is neither of these; it is just an essay.  It carries no weight whatsoever.  As an admin, I know that what truly matters is Wikipedia policy.  That is how asmins are supposed to decide AfDs.  The instructions to admins state, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)."  There is no basis in policy for deleting the article.  The instructions to admins also state,  When in doubt, don't delete. (emphasis in the original) Johntex\talk 19:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course is an essay, but it's likely the most useful essay there is on AFD discussions, it carries alot of weight when an AFD is close, and almost every admin who closes AFDs and doesn't count heads uses it, same with almost every DRV discussion. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This was a well publicized game that week, as soon as I saw the image in the article, I remembered the game. I agree with JohnTex: this is not news, it's an article about a game: one that has legitimate reason to be longer than a simple game summary in a season page.  --Bobak 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is important to be comprehensive of the topic. We are an encyclopedia, and in order to cover the subject completely, we need to cover topics such as this: National championship affecting games, top-ranked teams games, seasons, coaches, etc. This is not indiscriminate, and we can afford to cover topics like this deeper because we are not paper. MECU ≈ talk 15:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above strong justifications for deleting. Clearly this is not sportapedia.  What makes were a team planted their flag the previous season encyclopedic? Vegaswikian 22:39, 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.