Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Football Risk


 * 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. (non-admin closure) TheChronium  10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

College Football Risk

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I think this fails WP:GNG - even though there are several sources, most are either primary or fan-run blogs. It looks like there's two non-blog articles which discuss the game (MSN and Fort Worth Star-Telegram) the MSN article simply picked up a Bleacher Report blog post here. The Fort Worth article is also relatively brief. Web searches brought up no additional reliable, secondary, significant coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it's silly, but WP:PAULTHINKSITSSILLY is not a reason to delete.  It does, strangely enough, pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With which sources? SportingFlyer  T · C  17:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The feature article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram works for me, the MSN article appears to now be a busted link but I can extend some good faith on that from here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just checking they weren't additional sources to the ones I mentioned - the MSN one is still a fan blog so GNG isn't met. I also get the sense this article's better off on a different wiki. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source (namely, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). Therefore, it satisfies the minimum requirements for notability. Mlb96 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Our notability requirements specifically require multiple sources. One seven-sentence article isn't enough to pass GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Curious--how many sentences are the minimum?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? No they don't. The notability guidelines specifically state that "there is no fixed number of sources required" and that multiple sources is merely an expectation, not a requirement. Mlb96 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily saying there is a minimum, I just don't know how you can write a reliable encyclopaedia article off the back of one seven-sentence article. The "a single source is okay" argument usually only works for exceptional cases (historical bios, etc.) - common sense dictates this is not one of those cases. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I count 13 sentences in the Fort Worth article, not 7.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: As it passed all the criteria.(Fade258 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (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.