Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Southeastern Conference football officiating controversy


 * 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 redirect to 2009 Southeastern Conference football season. Any usable content may be merged from the page history at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

2009 Southeastern Conference football officiating controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a list of controversial referee decisions from a college football conference season. There is no claim of notability for the actual controversy though. Just about any sports season could have a list of controversial referee decisions. There is nothing that makes this season particularly notable. « Gonzo fan2007  (talk)  @ 20:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 20:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – per nom. I'm finding coverage of the individual calls and controversies, but I can't find sources sufficient to establish notability for a stand-alone article, e.g., WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Leviv&thinsp;ich 21:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete you can probably write these sorts of articles for any season in any sport that gets covered in the media. The kicker for me on WP:GNG front is there is no article that covers the controversy as a whole, so there's a WP:SYNTH issue as well. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2009 Southeastern Conference football season and merge any reliably sourced information there, as appropriate. It's a possible search term, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2009 Southeastern Conference football season, yes redirects are cheap, but to me it seems like a iffy-iffy search term. Pay attention to hits on Google, if somewhat common, I will be all for a redirect. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (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.