Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Texas vs. Texas Tech 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   no consensus. SpinningSpark 16:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

2008 Texas vs. Texas Tech 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 generally 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. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games generally should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2008 Texas Longhorns football team and 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team) or rivalry article about the series (see Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:GNG coverage exceeding routine, historically significant. See BleacherReport, ESPN: #2 Most Memorable Big 12 moment, 7th on Sporting News list of best moments of the BCS Era, 247 Sports top 10 CFB games of the 2000s, Belt game, Led to controversial Big 12 tiebreaker, Stewart Mandel - Moment of the Year.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 20:39, October 28, 2014 (UTC) Signature added manually.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Falcon8765, we need to review a couple of basic principles, including the concepts of "significant coverage" per WP:GNG and "reliable source" per WP:RS. Bleacher Report (reader-contributed sports blog), 247sports.com (blog site), collegefootballbelt.com (blog site) are not reliable sources; and one and two-sentence mentions do not constitute "significant coverage" (pretty much everything you listed above with the exception of Mandell's blog).  Significant coverage means exactly that: a meaningful discussion of the game's significance; the routine morning-after news articles about this game provided a greater depth of coverage than anyhting listed above.  there is no reason why this game cannot be adequately covered in 2008 Texas Longhorns football team and 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team and Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry, consistent with the way 99.9% of all regular season CFB games are treated -- absent historical significance to college football or its culture and lore.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the concept of significant coverage and the relevant policies, thank you. Firstly, the Bleacher Report article is written by one of their featured columnists, not a random fan. Secondly, 247Sports.com is not just some random blog. It is one of the Big 4 recruiting services and the article was written by one of their national analysts. Thirdly, the CFB Belt is a well-known title that has been profiled by [[SB Nation]'s national writers. And finally, you ignored the final two sources provided with Stewart Mandel listing the game as the moment of the year in 2008, written several years after the fact. I'm not sure how you can define that as 'routine morning-after news'. Both the Bleacher Report article and the 247 Sports article were written years after the fact. 247 Sports and Stewart Mandel are both reliable sources, and the rest of the sources contribute evidence as to the general notability of the game.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 01:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here's a list of other guidelines that support the deletion or redirect of this article:
 * 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, SPORTSEVENT states "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)" is probably suitable for a stand-alone article.
 * 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."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE both support the notability of the article. The Stewart Mandel coverage 4 years after the fact is not a burst article and is an independent and reliable source, nor is it routine coverage. The other articles were all well after the fact as well. Additional sources supporting the notability of the game, meeting the reliability and non-routine coverage requirements: LA Times 2009, National Football Foundation This Week in College Football History series, NFL.com 2014, San Antonio Express-News 2011, Yahoo Sports Best of the Era 2013
 * If, for the sake of argument, we accept everything you said above, none of that precludes us from covering this game as part of the two teams' respective season articles (see 2008 Texas Longhorns football team and 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team) and the series rivalry article (see Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry), consistent with the established practices of WP:CFB. Wikipedia does not need four articles that cover the same regular season college football game.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I have to agree with Falcon's rationale for GNG, and I'm disturbed in this pattern of what I believe to be misapplied guidelines such as WP:ROUTINE -- I've asked for clarification on this specific one at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events) and no one from that project has responded as of yet (There is, of course, a response from User:Dirtlawyer but I don't believe that user was involved in the creation of WP:ROUTINE--I may be incorrect). In any event, a number of game articles have been deleted under this guise that consensus has been reached, but I can find no place where consensus has actually defined showing how these games should be deleted.  THere are AFDs, but the bulk of the reasons in the AFDs have been that consensus says so... okay, WHERE does consensus say so?  We have respectful disagreement here and a third party should be involved in the iterpretation and application of WP:ROUTINE and the other guidelines.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The WP:CFB consensus, Paul, has been well-established over years by actual practice, reinforced by reference to the guidelines listed above. As for recent precedents, 21 regular season single-game articles have been merged or deleted since July 2014 by AfD discussions in which over a dozen regular sports editors participated (User:Arxiloxos, User:Bagumba, User:Bsuorangecrush, User:Cbl62, User:Dirtlawyer1, User:Ejgreen77, User:GrapedApe, User:JohnInDC, User:Jrcla2, User:Jweiss11, User:Muboshgu, User:Patriarca12, User:Resolute, User:Spanneraol, User:X96lee15, User:Zeng8r), and there are another four single-game AfDs currently pending.  Those 25 articles were nominated for AfD by seven different editors, including myself.
 * As for your interpretation of WP:ROUTINE, most editors who have actually read the full text of the guideline understand that "sports scores" is an example, not a limitation on the meaning of "routine coverage." Your very narrow reading of WP:ROUTINE would seem to be the minority interpretation.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WikiProject College football/Participant list lists 184 active participants in WP:CFB. You provide 15 names--but only five of those are actually on the active participant list.  So I ask again, where was consensus established?  Do you have a conversation where discussion was made and evaluated?  A talk page?  A proposal?  All I see are a few people making decisions under the guise of what is being called consensus instead of taking the time to actually establish consensus.  For a bit of history lesson, the project discussed this very topic about notability of games at length a number of years ago and could not reach consensus then.  15 people do not make a consensus of this magnitude without a discussion of record.  A number of people will oppose it if made aware--and the reason I say that is because a number of people have opposed the idea in the past, which is why it was left hanging solid in the "no consensus" realm.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul, WT:CFB was posted on the WP:CFB talk page on October 7, 2014 --over three weeks ago. Since then, there have been 36 separate edits to the discussion section, including updates every time a new AfD has been proposed, and every time an AfD has closed (all 20 with "deletes" so far).  It's not like anyone is trying to hide the discussion or the AfDs.  Quite the contrary, in fact: it's been the most active discussion on the WP:CFB talk page since the first week of October, as we have tried to keep everyone informed and updated, as well as encouraging their participation in the AfDs.  Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.  If you believe that notice of these AfDs should be posted elsewherDe, please feel free to do so.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have more discussion than that? Three dudes on a project talk page is not much of a consensus. What I see now is a handful of users nominating articles for deletion, claiming consensus, and then having the article deleted because people assume that there actually is a consensus without further investigation. The page you have linked does not adequately demonstrate a consensus.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Falcon, I never claimed that the linked CFB talk page section demonstrated "consensus"; Paulmcdonald was complaining about a lack of notice to CFB editors, which is simply not true. As for defining "consensus," I urge you to review WP:CONSENSUS: consensus does not require an !vote or a formal RfC.  Consensus is usually established without any such formal polling of editors, and is often established implicitly over time by established practices.  I also urge you to review the excerpts from the five guidelines I have linked above.  Contrary to what Paul has asserted, even when a topic is notable per WP:GNG, that is not a guarantee of stand-alone article on the particular subject, and a separate consensus is established with each and every AfD with regard to the particular subjects under discussion.  If you want to understand the thinking of the 20+ editors who participated in the most recent 24 AfDs regarding stand-alone articles for regular season CFB games (15 or more of whom are regular sports editors), I suggest you read their individual comments in the AfDs linked here: WT:CFB.  A lot of arguments are being made here that have already been rejected 20 times in the last 3 weeks.  Your best line of attack is to demonstrate that this game is somehow more historically significant or important to the culture and lore of the game than others that have been recently deleted.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have. I've provided numerous reliable sources indicating the historical significance of the game.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 23:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Of course there is a lot of coverage for any Texas v. Texas Tech football game. Of course that doesn't mean it should have an article. WP:SPORTSEVENT isn't really that detailed, but I will say that if it's deemed that every regular season game is notable, then you have 1,408 new articles per year (11 games per year &times; 128 Division I-FBS teams), plus any Division I FCS games and Division II / III... it becomes and endless mess that diminishes actual important games, such as bowl games or the occasional regular season game that does deserve an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Question what's wrong with 1,408 new articles a year, if it comes to that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It'll be a messy logistical nightmare. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? Wikipedia's front page already boasts "4 626 000+ articles" -- this is only 0.0304% of that.  If we can manage over 4 million articles in the English Wikipedia, why is another 1,408 going to put us over the top?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:EVENT, with lack of WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Even if one argues that GNG is met, WP:N says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." This is best handled in 2008 Texas Longhorns football team, 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team, and Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It fails neither WP:EVENT nor WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It has had multiple national articles written about it years after the fact by respected national journalists like Stewart Mandel. Did you look at the sources I posted? LA Times 2009, National Football Foundation This Week in College Football History series, NFL.com 2014, San Antonio Express-News 2011, Yahoo Sports Best of the Era 2013BleacherReport, ESPN: #2 Most Memorable Big 12 moment, 7th on Sporting News list of best moments of the BCS Era, 247 Sports top 10 CFB games of the 2000s, Belt game, Led to controversial Big 12 tiebreaker, Stewart Mandel - Moment of the Year. That's multiple features by national news outlets years after the fact. How is that not continued, unroutine coverage?  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 15:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Falcon--this game has sticking power that far exceeds notability standards. EVENT, INDEPTH, and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE are met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, the Wikipedia community, WP:CFB, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter "may be better covered as part of another article." [Guidelines quoted above.]  And you have yet to state a case why this subject material cannot be adequately covered as part of the two team's existing 2008 season articles and the Border War rivalry article.  That's the argument in a nutshell: you're presuming notability (if, in fact, the topic is notable) equals a stand-alone article; other editors are saying that this material is better covered as part of the season and rivalry articles without another forking/fragmenting of the content, and that position is supported by the guidelines.  That's all.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Combining into one article would be clumsy and unweildy, leading to exceptionally large articles that would be hard to maintain. But you're not proposing that they be integrated, you're proposing that they be deleted. As near as I can tell in the previous game articles that have been deleted, none of the articles that were deleted have been integrated into larger all-encompassing articles.  AFD is not the place to propose a WP:MERGE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul, there is no need to propose a merge: the coverage at 2008 Texas Longhorns football team already rivals that of the stand-alone article in depth and detail, and is more than adequate. All that remains is to delete the stand-alone single-game article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on INDEPTH, CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and GNG. In that case, it could be subjective decision, as WP:N guideline says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."—Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources I see are merely routine coverage and addition to lists of great games. I'd like to see sources that talk specifically about the game, in more than just recap of the plays. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How is this just a recap of plays? How are the rest of the sources years after the fact 'routine'? A game receiving extensive, focused coverage years after the game has actually occurred is not routine.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 21:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is reasonably well-written and sourced, receives an average of 18 views a day, and its subject clearly meets our notability guidelines as demonstrated by Falcon8765. Deleting it would serve no useful purpose. As for the claim that "the coverage at 2008 Texas Longhorns football team already rivals that of the stand-alone article in depth and detail, and is more than adequate," I strongly disagree. It has no scoring summary, its game summary is cursory at best, and it all but completely ignores the information from the game's main article's "Aftermath" and "Legacy" sections. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:40, 5 November 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.