Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Hawaii Bowl


 * 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. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2006 Hawaii Bowl
Average bowl game, nothing special about it, wikipedia is not a news service, no sources that indicate why this game is notable. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 18:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I think we've already established by precedent that article about individual games for a NCAA Division I sanctioned bowl game are notable. True, the Hawaii Bowl is nowhere near the stature of the Rose Bowl or New Year's Day games, but it is a D-I bowl game. Realkyhick 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the precendent? Jaranda wat's sup 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Back in the day, Bowl games meant something. Today, the Charmin Toilet Paper Bowl just doesn't mean the same thing. Most Bowls are just post-season exhibit games and not notable. MarkBul 22:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just one game and not really notable at that.  Unencyclopedic. --Strothra 20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I understand this existing for BCS and National Championship Bowls. But, last year alone there were 38 bowl games. There are 38 again this year. Considering the 100+ years of Bowl History, this would mean that instead of about 300-400 games being notable, several thousand would be. With over half the teams in the NCAA making Bowl Games, they aren't all notable. Smashville 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep College Bowl games are notable. And this one more than others. In this game, Hawaii Quarterback Colt Brennan set the single season touchdown record. That's a pretty big accomplishment that should make this game even more notable than other college bowl games. Spanneraol 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This is a significant event that just passes notability criteria. I know that this is not the Rose Bowl or the Super Bowl but it is significant.--JForget 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - College football games are notable. This is especially true of bowl games and games between rivals.  We have some great articles on college football.  For instance, please see 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game and 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game, Both have now made it to Good Article status.  This article can also get there in time.
 * 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 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again consensus doesn't indicate college football games are notable Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. We have a notability policy that says notability is proven by multiple independent sources.  These games have that.  Your desire to delete them is out of what with all the editors who write/edit/read these articles.  Your desire is out of what with the GA selection process that has chosen these games to be GA.  It is out of what with the future.  As Wikipedia grows, our coverage on topics such as this can and should become more comprehensive and detailed. Johntex\talk 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Regular season games arent notable but bowl games are. Spanneraol 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even with bowl games, there is consensus that major bowl games are notable, but this one is minor though, I don't agree that because a record is broken, that indicates that instant notabilty, records get broken every year. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where, pray tell, comes the evidence that individual bowl games are notable? Other than "Because I said so"? --Calton | Talk 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a postseason game for a significant American sports league.  This particular game had some records set.  And it's not like we'll run out of paper.--UsaSatsui 03:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge The appropriate information in the season articles for each team, but I fail to see why we should be covering news events like this when WikiNews is the place for it. Corpx 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We have articles about playoff games in many sports. College Bowl games are post-season matchups between top college teams. These are notable. Spanneraol 09:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2007 NBA Playoffs highlights all the playoff games except the championship, and I would equate the Hawaii Bowl to a first round game. Honestly, it takes 6 wins to get to a bowl and that's attainable if you scheduled enough creampuffs. Getting to a bowl game, especially one of the lower tiered bowls, is not that great of an accomplishment.  I'd agree with you if this were last year's MNC, but not this bowl Corpx 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Corpx. There aren't individual articles for playoff games, unless something particularly notable happened in the game. In this game, the most notable thing was that a season record was surpassed. To me, that means that the information belongs in the Colt Brennan article, and this article isn't necessary (my delete vote is below). Cogswobble talk 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just another college football exhibition, with some minor "records" set. Unless there's the slightest sign that anyone except the respective teams' alumni fans will give a hoot about this, oh, NOW, there's not point in having it. --Calton | Talk 14:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want a sign that "anyone except the respective teams' alumni fans will give a hoot about this" as you say then here you go: Johntex - alumus of The University of Texas at Austin, NMajdan - alumnus of the University of Oklahoa, Mecu - alumnus of the University of Colorado.  All three have spoken up to keep the article and none of their schools were involved in the game. Johntex\talk 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All bowl games are notable. MECU ≈ talk 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The only hard and fast guideline Wikipedia has ever had is that the article be verifiable. In the ensuing void, the Wikipedia community has come up with additional guidelines to further refine the content of the encyclopedia.  Don't make the mistake of assuming that the absence of any specific guideline means that the community intended it to be deleted, rather it is more likely that the community has not yet considered it.  I generally tend to agree with arguments that the college football bowl system is completely broken.  But decisions about the suitability of the article should not be based on what we think about the greed and stupidity of the system, but rather it should simply be about the game itself.  The facts are: it was a sanctioned post season bowl game with scads of reliable sources.  Participation in the bowl game is by invite only, so on some level, a deliberate decision was made to invite these two teams.  Certainly, some line has to be drawn, not all college games are interesting for Wikipedia, but I think a reasonable bar can be set, and I think that bar should be "bowl game". I'm all for having the game described in the individual team season articles too, but its difficult to get an objective and neutral description of the game in those articles, and readers are probably not interested in scanning through the team page to find details about the game.  Since fans will always be looking for a place to discuss a particular game, descriptions of it are always creeping into articles about individual players and coaches.  I watch a number of pages for coaches and players, and folks are prone to add multiple paragraphs dedicated to a single game if it is not treated elsewhere.  So, in the interest of contributing to consensus, this article passes WP:V, Wikipedia is not paper, and bowl games are notable and appropriate. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PAPER. ↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:PAPER isn't a reason for keeping an article Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. WP:PAPER points out that Wikipedia is not made of paper and that we have room to be comprehensive.  This article is part of a comprehensive treatment of college football. Johntex\talk 18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It also says that "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars". Just saying WP:PAPER isn't a reason for keeping. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote you provide, "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars" still gives no reason for deletion. The article complies with the five pillars, with the guidelines from the relevant wikiproject on what should be included in the article, etc.
 * Your nomination provides no reason at all for this to be deleting. You call it an "average bowl game" - that is purely a matter of opinion.  Some people might say that Grover Cleveland was an average US President or that Boone, North Carolina is an average town.  He don't just cover the very best and most exceptional. Johntex\talk 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did give a reason, it's that there is not indication why this bowl game is more notable then another bowl game, WP:N is a reason. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you mention WP:N. Let's look at that guideline.  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." - That means since this topic received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it is presumed to be notable. Johntex\talk 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does this bowl game need to more "more" notable than other bowl games? Doesn't it just have to be notable in it's own right. If all bowl games are notable, then it doesn't matter which are "more" notable. Spanneraol 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering how you detemine how one bowl game is "more notable" than another. --UsaSatsui 16:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe in the notability of bowl games.  Simply cramming them into the main article would get problematic over time.  If the article can be made properly, then it should be allowed.  --Bobak 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like there is community consensus that bowl games are notable, I withdraw. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there's other delete votes, I'm not sure you can withdraw the nom...at least not for a speedy keep. --UsaSatsui 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I disagree emphatically that Bowl games are notable on their own. There were over 30 different bowl games last year alone, some of which were certainly not very notable, and don't deserve individual articles. That being said, I won't argue strongly that this game was not notable, however, it seems to me that it was mostly notable because Brennan set a season record. To me, that means most of the relevant information belongs on Colt Brennan, and doesn't merit its own article. Cogswobble talk 20:52, 4 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.