Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Killers


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Giant Killers
Delete - very unencyclopedic. I think its a story about a particular college football team from 1967. Even has a 'prologue' and 'epilogue'. Wickethewok 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the style, I thought that it would be best to try and tell it like a story, because I think it is a better way to convey the information than in a more formalized manner. If you don't agree, I will assure you that you are more than welcome to alter any & all of the phraseology to make it more encyclopedic. I think I am correct about the Beavers being the only team to beat a #1 & a #2, & tie another #2, however, it would take a lot of research to confirm this. I used to have a more reliable site for my more factual claims, but it dissappeared. I could update this site when I find another good source, but it would take roughly a week's work to check that one fact. I simply do not have the time right now, so I edited it out. The reason I wrote this was to inform the Game of the Century page, which contained a couple factual inaccuracies, which I edited out. As for citing, what exactly do I need to show in order to pass that test? Summing up, this team warrants a page because they did something unprecedented. The information I presented is all true, but I am not at all tied to the way I presented it. If you feel that I should cut down on the information presented, I easily could. I think it's good the way it is, but, if you would like to change something to make it more encyclopedic, please do! I think deleting is a bit draconian to simply editing it on your part. If you guys could be more specific in your disagreements with the way I presented the information, that would be much appreciated as well. That way, I could edit to improve the article. This is the first page that I have created, so I could easily have made a bunch of Wikipedia-site errors; however, I think that the information contained in the article is rather solid. Like you say, it could be presented better, but, without more specific critique, I would not know how to do so.
 * Delete or in any case a complete rewrite... --Francisco Valverde 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, very unencyclopedic, and moreover I don't believe the first sentence at all without verification --Deville (Talk) 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopeædic, and unless someone sources it, OR. —porg es (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. It is an entry about a the Oregon State college football team in 1967.  They were unusual because they beat a team that was ranked #1 at the time and later would be the national champions.  That wouldn't warrant an entry by itself; however, they also beat #2 ranked Purdue and tied #2 ranked UCLA.  It is also important to note that one of the games known in college football as the "Game of the Century" featured UCLA (ranked #1 after USC lost) & USC (ranked #3).  (In fact, on Wikipedia, it is the only "Game of the Century" where the teams were not undefeated and untied & also the only game where the teams weren't ranked #1 & #2.)  As such, these Beavers had ended both teams' perfect season and certainly merit an article for that reason alone.  They also, however, beat Purdue, a #2-ranked team which had earlier defeated #1 Notre Dame.
 * Delete, this is unencyclopaedic. Belongs in a history of the Oregon State University, and perhaps deserves a mention at that page. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2006 (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.