Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The first meeting of two major programs is not in itself significant enough to warrant its own article. The lead-up to the game received about as much coverage as would be expected from two major programs meeting for the first time. Furthermore, the info could easily fit into the respective teams' 2005 season articles. The purpose of this fork was stated by the author to be a result of a GA review which recommended it be created, which is debatable. Also, the game has not received lasting coverage in subsequent years. Lizard (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Notability (sports) does not seem to cover games, so that takes us to Notability (events) (I also don't see anything at Articles for deletion/Common outcomes). Now, there is no denying that such games, as trivial as they may seem for most people, do generate a lot of coverage, because sport is a major hobby for the masses. We are therefore faced with an event that does, routinely, generate a lot of coverage - at the same time WP:EVENT states that "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Whether sport games fall under such routine issue is a BIG topic. This one does have a claim of being notable. Unlike in the other AfD in the series (Articles for deletion/2008 Texas vs. Oklahoma football game), I don't see anything here to suggest this game was non-routine, the claim of one of the best games of the season still seems relatively routine, given that we are dealing with a high-volume, low-interest, collecte sport level field, and as such, in lieu of any policy guidelines that would suggest alternative reasons to keep this, I lean towards deletion, seeing this as a non-notable event. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am a strong supporter of the long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance. Here, however, there are three aspects to this game that, in combination, justify an exception. First, this was the first meeting between Texas and Ohio State, two of the giants of the sport, both ranking in the top five programs in wins with 12 national championships between them. Second, the game itself was noteworthy separate and apart from the "historic first" meeting element.  It matched two top five teams, Texas going on to win the 2005 national championship and Ohio State ranked No. 4 after winning the Big Ten championship and Fiesta Bowl. Does anyone actually believe that this game is less notable than, say, the 1983 Astro-Bluebonnet Bowl, the 2014 Quick Lane Bowl, or the 2012 Music City Bowl? Of course not.  We presume every bowl game is notable, but most of those games are far less notable than this one. Third, there is some evidence of lasting coverage, e.g., six pages (20-25) from this book dedicated to this particular game. Cbl62 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per the well–reasoned arguments presented by Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I read the first RfD and one comment was "Delete. A football game". Someone replied that it wasn't a helpful comment but I disagree. It's a football game; not a title/bowl/championship/etc. It's just one game.
 * Keep I stand among those who want to include this article. Clearly had far more coverage than any basic "routine" game and stands on its own notability.  Just because it was a football game does not discout the amount of coverage it received in the media.  Like it or not, lots of people think this is notable. Significant widespread third party coverage supports that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * keep agree with CBL62. L3X1  (distant write)  19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep That the game received six pages of coverage in a book strongly establishes it is notable. I agree with Cbl62's arguments. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The game is not notable to have an article. Merge if necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2017 (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.