Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009)


 * 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. As there isn't any consensus as to whether the delete rationale applies at all to these articles, there can be no consensus to delete them. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be WP:NOT. Can't see why we would have to dedicate pages to certain football matches games just because they were broadcast on a particular time slot by a particular broadcaster. Results belong on team and season articles. Can't see the historical significance. Tvx1 12:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There's obviously historical significance in the games prior to 1970, when Monday Night Football officially became a regular television series (back when it was considered rare and a novelty). And of course, not every single NFL game is televised in a weekly prime time slot (let alone what it considers its premiere television so-case).  BornonJune8 (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2016
 * I think that it's apparent that being a Wikipedia user who hails from Belgium, you don't seem to totally resonate or have much grasp of the history or legacy of the National Football League (which is the biggest professional sports organization in North America). I could sense this when you said "football matches" instead of "football games".  Therefore, you don't seem to understand why something like that is justifiable in part because it doesn't immediately confirm to your worldview or most immediate knowledge of sports.  BornonJune8 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2016
 * Comment Think twice before you decide to accuse someone from outside the US of not being familiar with football and the US way of promoting it. I have been a big fan of the NFL for a considerable number of years now and haven't missed a Super Bowl since Super Bowl XLII. The fact that I refer to the sport as football and not "American Football" like my fellow Europeans should have given that away. And your comments actually demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever what is being nominated and why. Again read WP:NOT and remember that wikipedia is not only written for US football fans but for a worldwide readership. The nominated articles are not the articles on the US broadcasts dedicated to these matches, but the supplementary and utterly unnecessary lists of the results of all the games broadcast during that coverage. Nothing in your reply does even attempt to address how in any away the result of thursday, sunday and monday night football games have any exceptional historical significance over all the other football games that justifies tabulating the result and US only broadcast (reminders that those games are also broadcasted outside the US) time and channel of every such game every played. Tvx1 18:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They're more significant than any other football game during regular season, because they're the only ones that are being literally being played during said time (prime time) and day (well, Thursday and Monday). Just because you prefer the articles to have a more worldview doesn't negate the fact that they are American centric/based/produced broadcasts (unlike say, the Olympic Games for example) and games first and foremost.  How is that any different than say, an American's point of view on NBC's telecasts of the European Premiere Soccer League.  My point is that the majority of the viewers are American and vice versa, so shouldn't they count first. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2016
 * However the majority of wikipedia's readership is not and we write wikipedia for our readers. Not solely or even primarily for the US TV viewers. But this is all of the point. The discussed articles are supplementary results articles. They are not the main articles on Thursday/Sunday/Monday night football games' coverage and those articles will remain regardless. This phenomenon of rescheduling some games for the benefit of TV isn't at all a NFL exclusive or even US exclusive. For instance, the English Premier League soccer schedules most of its games on 15:00 local time. However every weekend some matches are played on 13:30 and 17:30 local time on saturday and some on sunday afternoon and even on monday evening. This is all for the benefit of TV (Sky Sports in this case). Yet do we have articles dedicated to these specially scheduled soccer games? No, of course not. Similarly my country's premier soccer league schedules the majority of their matches on saturday nights. Yet for the benefit of live TV broadcasts there are always is a friday night game, an early evening saturday game and some sunday afternoon and evening games. Do we have dedicated articles on the results of these differently scheduled games? No. Not even on the dutch language wiki. And you know why? Because the results of these games have no exceptional historical significance just because of their scheduling. And the same applies to NFL. If the Jets meet the Giants it just has no exceptional significance to the league whether one beats the other on a thursday, sunday or monday. Tvx1 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But Thursday, Sunday, and Monday night NFL games aren't rescheduled (well, technically, later on in the season, NBC can "flex" in a Sunday night game in they can replace one game w/ what's a more desirable match-up) just at random. And as I said before, there's only one game played in said timeslot not, multiple (or as you put it, some as if its checkered) at once games like in the morning (if you live on the West coast) and afternoon. Just because say, the Premier League has primetime games on their own, doesn't necessarily mean that their business practices are remotely similar to the NFL's.  Plus, the dedicated live weekly broadcasts for the Belgian soccer league, don't even have their own individual, comprehensive Wikipedia articles to immediately refer to.  And if the Jets play the Giants, then at least on possible significance is that they're pretty much guaranteed to play in a game that has the widely reach in viewers for the respective week. You're seriously entering a major slippery slope by saying that in your country the pro sports over their function like this (or the way that you consume live sporting events in Europe when compared to America) or that so it's not fair to just focus on America (or something to that extent or along those lines) BornonJune8 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2016
 * Nothing of your last reply has any relevance to this deletion inclusion. Why it's important to maintain comprehensive list of results in non-sunday afternoon games, connected to particular broadcasters? Tvx1 21:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I guess that if there's going to be articles for prime time games then there should be articles for Sunday afternoon games to make it even!? Why is it important!?  Well for one reason to say the least, only two teams at a time can play in the selected prime time slot (hence, why it's Monday or Sunday Night Football) and not virtually the entire NFL. It's basically much easier to keep track of non-Sunday afternoon (since they naturally, are meant to have a higher sense of prestige and concentrated focus) games than the other way around. BornonJune8 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2016
 * No there should not be articles for sunday games to even it out. There shouldn't be any articles on the results for sports games based on when they are broadcast. Results should be tied to the teams who achieved them and to the leagues those games affected. Tvx1 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is not every team gets to play in a non-Sunday afternoon timeslot, hence why it's a more unique situation to track their "results". Of course we could just look at the respected teams' results for that particular season, but this is concentrated really, on the television medium, not the NFL and its teams in general or in a vague/broad-scale manner.  It would be kind of counterproductive and undercutting to have an article on Monday Night and Sunday Night Football and yet not try to give some insight on whom ever had the opportunity to play in that coveted timeslot.  BornonJune8 (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2016


 * Not to argue the point, but the idea that "not every team gets to play in a non-Sunday afternoon timeslot" is no longer the case, as the NFL has made it a rule that every team needs to play on Thursday Night Football throughout the season (as to keep a "competitive balance"). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that you kind of misinterpreted/misunderstood the main point that I was trying to make. If you're team plays on Thursday nights for example, wouldn't you regardless (of the knowledge of the NFL's rules that mandate that every team has to play on Thursday night) play much closer attention/give it much more scrutiny by default than any other game (outside of prime time of course) during the season?  You seem to make it sound like that we shouldn't treat this as a more special occasion or give these particular games more precedence since "well, everybody takes turns anyway, so why is it such a big deal!?" BornonJune8 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2016
 * No. Why would I pay much closer attention/give it much more scrutiny because it's not played on sunday afternoon? It's just another football game. As I have stated before. Playing sports games on different timeslots than the bulk of the games is not by any means a NFL specific/unique practice. They didn't even invent that practice. I regularly watch my favorite soccer team play sunday afternoon or even friday evening matches instead of the usual sunday evening matches and the team certainly does not play much closer attention/give it much more scrutiny when they play on friday on sunday. On a side note, please do not sign your posts with incorrect timestamps. was posted today and not on september, 20th like your signature wants to make us believe. Tvx1 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined by whether or not any single user on Wikipedia pays attention to anything. What matters is that there is significant coverage of it.  Otherwise, this turns into WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  14:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete violates WP:NOT. We are not a statistics website. Prevan (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia isn't a statistics website as you claim then please explain all of the articles in this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sports_records_and_statistics BornonJune8 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2016
 * WP:OTHERCRAP. Tvx1 18:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that. It is perfectly appropriate to point to the existence of a category designated specifically for sports stats articles in countering the apparent claim that we should not have any stats articles. Lepricavark (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep articles clearly pass WP:GNG and WP:LISTN with a multitude of sources. I would support WP:SNOW to close immediately as a keep.  While some enthusiastic editors seem to agree with me, it's only because they are right.  These lists are clear keepers and have been around to stand the test of notability discussions for a significant period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment However fails WP:NOT. What's so much more historically significant about the results of football games played on thursday, sunday and monday nights over the vast majority of games which are played on sunday afternoon that makes these games merit standalone articles for their results and broadcast times? By the way snow keep is not possible with already one delete support. Tvx1 18:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Query what specific measures of WP:NOT do you think the articles fail? Just saying it doesn't make it so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply That wikipedia is not a directory. Tvx1 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither are any of the articles in question here. We would not use any of these articles to find the location or contact information of the Chicago Bears... that doesn't even come close to applying.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are 7 points in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so why do you single out just one irrelevant one. I'm referring to point 4. But please do explain to me how thursday, sunday and monday night football games have such a historical significance by default just by virtue of being played in those time slots that they merit dedicated articles on their dates and results.Tvx1 21:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." This page is none of those either.  The National Football League nor any of the broadcasting companies are involved here so far as I can tell, and I don't believe that anyone would come to this page as a resource for conducting business.  The relevance comes because those are the episodes of the long-running television series and notability arises because of third party media coverage in reliable sources thus passing the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why Are you deleting this article don't do this please save this article From being deleted please save it. 2600:8803:7A00:19:305B:692B:6CCF:46DA (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The articles don't establish notability and googling I can't find that the topic of "lists of games on X network" is notable. Articles on the "History of MNF" or "History of NFL football on TNT" are probably notable, but not lists of individual games. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a novel enough of an addition to Wikipedia. Monday Night Football/Sunday Night Football/Thursday Night Football games are distinct from other games, as they are nationally televised. These games tend to match two very worthy adversaries, emphasizing the significance of these games as opposed to average games. Teams also have to deal with the pressure of having shorter weeks (since the games are typically played on Sundays), also makes the stakes of these games even higher, as teams have one less day to prepare for their next game. There's plenty of media about Monday Night Football/Sunday Night Football/Thursday Night Football. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2016


 * I hope you do not delete this article because this is important and needs to stay as it as and it's also the end of the message. 2600:8803:7A00:19:305B:692B:6CCF:46DA (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What matters is why and how is this important. It's not important just because you claim so. Please educate me on why it is important to tabulate that the Cleveland Browns beat the San Diego Chargers by 21-17 on some 1972 monday night. Tvx1 21:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not looking at the whole picture in that regard. It isn't simply about the Cleveland Browns or San Diego Chargers that particular night of the year as if it's a minor footnote in history, encompasses the entire history of the Monday Night Football television series.  Bare in mind, that the schedules aren't simply beholden to the individual teams (hence why their nationally televised appearances are being singled out above all else) but the entire history of the National Football League.  This is not something that can easily be marginalized or not taken in for account of having heightened importance or significance.  Just because you personally don't understand why it isn't important doesn't necessarily or automatically mean that you single-handily speak for the majority. BornonJune8 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2016
 * Perhaps you could explain why it is necessary to delete these articles. You claim above that "we write wikipedia for our readers", and several readers are chiming in here in favor of keeping the articles. Lepricavark (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet even more are in favor of deleting. Maybe you should read their reasons too. Tvx1 09:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is no longer true. The !vote counter indicates a deadlock and numerous IPs have chimed in expressing their desire for a 'keep' outcome. There is currently no consensus for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd argue that "importance" isn't much of a measure. See reasoning at WP:NEED - notability is the measure, and WP:GNG pretty much covers that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Singling out games just because they're not played on Sunday is a non-starter. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I have not seen a convincing reason for deletion. These articles do not, in my view, qualify as directories. Lepricavark (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Please leave conclusions to the discussion's reviewer. Tvx1 09:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Such statements are valid contributions to discussions. If you'd like clarification or details from the participating editor, you're welcome to ask for those.  Attempting to prevent someone from taking a position does not belong here.  We're working to make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the sake of consistency, I suppose you will strike all of the conclusions that you have posted in this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep They're not NOT, pass the GNG, and no convincing reason for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Haven't seen any evidence that the results of non-sunday afternoon games passing GNG as a subject. If you claim something passed GNG you HAVE to substantiate that. Tvx1 09:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is your job, as the initiator of the AfD, to demonstrate why the article should be deleted. Besides, why are you making conclusions about Jclemens' !vote? Shouldn't you leave that to the discussion's reviewer? Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not my sole job. And when somebody makes a claim they are required to substantiate that. Regardless of which action they are in favor. Not doing so will likely result in said contribution not to carry much wait upon closure of the discussion. Tvx1 17:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is your job. If you propose that the article be deleted, you must demonstrate why you hold that opinion. I don't know how you can disagree with that. Lepricavark (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You misread. I meant it's not only up to me. It's very obvious you have not been on Wikipedia and that this is your first involvement with an AFD. I have been involved in quite a few, both as contributor and nominator, and I can assure you that many of this discussion initiated with comparable short statements have resulted in deletion of the discussed article(s). Tvx1 15:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not my first involvement with an AfD. I'm not sure how that can be obvious when it is false. I don't care how much prior AfD experience you have; in the three AfDs where we have interacted, you have never been able to provide a rebuttal when I point out that the policies or guidelines you cite are being misapplied. Lepricavark (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop talking about deleting this article it needs to end now and stop this debate about deleting this article. 2600:8803:7A00:19:305B:692B:6CCF:46DA (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I too believe the articles should be kept. Discussing it is part of the process here at Wikipedia.  The discussion will likely close within 7 days of it being opened.  I'm in favor of closing it sooner but it doesn't look like that will happen.  I understand, please be patient.  Contact me if you'd like some help understanding.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete ALL per the nom. There's nothing significant about these games as a whole at all. Individual games that would qualify for their own notability should either have their own article, or a mention in that season's article or team's article.
 * Maybe that aren't in most cases, but at the base value of the fact that they were the only games to be played and nationally televised in prime time, that's not easy to overlook or bypass. And the fact that Monday Night Football has been on the air now for over 40 years, there are likely going to be more "significant games" as a whole than insignificant. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2016


 * Huh? If an individual game were notable, you would have us delete the article on it anyway?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I was saying if the individual games listed were notable in their own right, they would either have an article, or a mention on the league season/team page. As a list however this is not encyclopedic. I think you may have mis-read my comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm confident I mis-read it! That's why I asked.  However, the second part I have to disagree on the idea that if the games were notable they would already be mentioned in one article or have their own. They are mentioned in this article already, and Wikipedia is far from complete. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Generalizing due to the decades of time involved and the newer broadcasting partners/dates, these games were picked as a/the league's marquee game of the week (1 of 13 ~ 1 of 16) including for rivalries, rematches of meaningful games from the prior season, marquee player matchups (ie, ratings interest), televised nationally throughout the United State, drive local fan interest and ticket sales differently, and inherently subject to national media coverage rather than just the local media of the associated teams of a typical Sunday game. Each is a distinct type of game, with specific game times, and different allowed days of game preparation including player return from injury.  They are different in every way except the playing rules. The WP:NOTSTATS ("Excessive listings of statistics") argument is utterly lacking, though possibly appealing to those unfamiliar with the content. The supporting text and citations can be improved to provide this context to the casual reader as is true of many articles. Please adhere to WP:BLUDGEON. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The articles are notable and several of them do include key notes about the games that were shown like the page for NFL Network's Thursday Night Football. The only issue I have where a page would fail WP:NOTSTATS is NBC Sunday Night Football results (2006–present). To me that section of that article is an excessive listings of statistics. The games however are not as this information can be found all over Wikipedia such as team articles, NFL season articles, etc. This is just another way to present that same information and from what I've seen in Wikipedia there are multiple articles that contain the same information but different ways to present them. I'm not a big sports fan however when I talk with others about a particular game they always tend to reference if it was a Monday night game or a Thursday night game. The dates that a game plays on is very notable in the United States. Also these lists are similar to a notable TV show which has multiple articles detailing/listing the episodes. Essentially the game is an episode of Monday Night Football for example. What would improve these articles would be more prose interjected into them and expand on the viewership of each game if the number of people that watched a game is available. Some of the Monday Night Football articles have a list of the game's viewership which is beneficial and encyclopedic.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  10:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are articles on every US TV broadcast incarnation of non-sunday afternoon football on Wikipedia. That is more than enough to house all the encyclopedic information on the subject. These additional articles on the results of non-sundae-afternoon games are overkill. There is no evidence that they have any greater impact on the outcomes of NFL seasons just because of their allocated timeslot or because of the identity of their US broadcaster. The Monday Night games' results list aren't even presented as TV show episodes but are merely the results of monday night games irrespective of the TV coverage. The "TV Show episodes" argument doesn't even carry much weight because there are clear examples of very notable TV shows like say Family Feud of Wheel of Fortune with wikipedia articles but without excessive lists of all their episodes. The is information is pure trivia and fancruft. There are sports with have a much greater worldwide importance like e.g. Association football or Tennis. Yet we don't have list articles like List of the results of football matches shown on Match of the Day 2, List of the results of FIFA World Cup matches shown on BBC1, List of the results of FA Cup matches shown on ITV List of the results of first monday Wimbledon matches, List of Wimbledon matches shown on BBC2 or List of US Open matches shown on CBS. Lists, like all articles, have to meet guidelines and policies. The ones discussed here fail to meet WP:LISTN, for a start, because the subject (this being "results of thursday/sunday/monday night football games") of them lacks notability. Tvx1 15:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just about any article on a popular musician's concert tour has a "schedule list" (is that within itself "trivia" also) for the dates that they performed. I guess that's "different" than listing schedules for network television broadcasts of a major professional sports league since that's the "whole or main point" of those articles!? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nobody stopping you from starting an article of for those televised sporting events that you listed. You're really engaging in a slippery slope in that sports that you personally view/perceive to have much greater "worldwide importance" should have an similar article.  Your main argument seems to be in that regard of "The NFL isn't that big in my country when compared to other sports like soccer or tennis so it doesn't (or I don't understand why) merit so many articles for this television coverage!  And your argument for game shows is apples and oranges.  Since Family Feud and Wheel or Fortune (and by extension, daytime soap operas) air in a weekday strip and don't have a clear cut episode identification outside of the day that they were first broadcast, it's much harder to keep track of than a once a week program.  And bringing in tournaments like the FIFA World Cup or tennis majors is much broader in scale.  I guess by that logic, there should be a list for every single Olympic event such as basketball broadcast by said network also. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just as much "apples and oranges" as your comparison of the football games to scripted TV shows. I don't see how my list topics are broad either. I deliberately chose very specific aspects of very specific events within those sports. I have no interest in creating these list, because contrary to you, I know they have zero chance of being kept as they are utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. And why do you go on the "my country" attack again? I used the word worldwide for a reason. Tvx1 23:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm using the "my country" attack as you put it because you're the one you who first brought up the notion that NFL television results aren't aren't that important from your point of view when other sports that you're more accustomed to are perceived as bigger. I would be like me complaining about list of games/matches for tennis or soccer/association football from outside of America, since it isn't as big of a deal as the National Football League or Major League Baseball.  The Super Bowl is one of the biggest sporting events in the world, not just America, so therefore, it's a worldwide event within itself.  I find it funny and ironic that you talk about there being "zero chances", when you're the one who started this whole discussion in the very first place.  And my point in comparing football games to scripted TV shows is that just like a scripted TV show, they're an on-going, serialized (in theory, the season itself is the storyline albeit in real life) program.  You on the other hand, make it sound like that "well, why doesn't daily stripped game shows" get its own list of episodes and what not.  You're list if broad in my eyes because you're mentioning other "special" events within a shorter time frame like tournaments (with is pretty much the same as articles for postseason event broadcasters for the NFL). BornonJune8 (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because one football game every season is a "worldwide event" it doesn't mean that every regular season game is as well and that it's appropriate to have lists on the results of every non-sunday-afternoon football game. Others have supported deletion as well. There is a reason why they did. Tvx1 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you paid closer attention, there have been others you have supported keeping the lists on the contrary. And if the NFL isn't a "worldwide sport" besides the Super Bowl, then please explain their annual regular season games in London, England?  But trying to exactly measure the worldwide importance (or how many people all over the world watch non-Sunday afternoon games) of the NFL when compared to the other sports that you mentioned, is really a highly debatable topic within itself. BornonJune8 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for 5 days and there is no end in sight stop talking about this article for deletion and get it over with now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CLOSEAFD, discussions such as these typically last for 7 days.

What This has been in place for 7 Days and still not over and the ducssion needs to end now and stop being lazy. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A closing admin should come along sometime today and make a decision. Your comments requesting closing are starting to become disruptive (and I agree with you it should be kept).  Please be patient.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes Paul McDonald I Agree With That and I'm sorry and I aplogise for being disruptive I Won't do it again God Bless You. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment We've had some of these articles for more than decade because they utterly non-controversial. The nom is clearly engaged in WP:BLUDGEON with nearly 20 posts, appears to have basic confusion about both the sport and its terminology, and now has evolving reasoning for supporting deletion when opposed by those familiar with the content.  Would like to see the discussion extended to hear additional views from those who might be avoiding due to the environment that has been created. Lastly, if deletion is supported, the content should be merged to the corresponding base articles -which is yet another good reason to keep the content in the existing stand-alone articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "bludgeoning" can really said to be happening on both sides. Tvx1 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between bludgeoning and rebutting bogus applications of policy. I do find it telling that you have not once been able to refute my rebuttals. Lepricavark (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's only your opinion I haven't. There are number of people, all much more wikipedia-experienced than you, who have agreed with me. Wanna guess why that is? Tvx1 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * False. Not once, after I pointed out that a policy/guideline did not apply, have you done anything beyond telling me not to make conclusions or telling me that it is just my opinion, even though I, unlike you, am quoting the actual wording of the policy/guideline in question. Now you are telling me that I am wrong because of a perceived lack of experience, even though I am obviously experienced enough to actually read and interpret the policies instead of just linking them. There have been people who expressed agreement with you, but there have been also been experienced Wikipedians who agreed with me. You think that you can disregard my comments because you have been around longer, but I have made a much stronger effort than you to actually examine the policies in question. Lepricavark (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks Like This Article is going to end I don't think so. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please a third party should close this. Do not relist it as discussion (and those discussing) have been exhausted.  WP:RELISTINGISEVIL--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I could see treating the Monday Night Football results from 1970 to 2005 differently than the others. I could see those results beting treated like episode lists of other heavily watched prime time network TV shows.  And in the days when there was generally one prime time game each week, that game did get disproportionate attention relative to other games.  So I could see keeping those, but deleting the rest due to lack of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They are not presented as episodes of a TV show though. They are simply presented as the results of all NFL games that were ever played on monday. This is essentially an endless subject and we already had to split them into four lists to be able to house them. Doing a search in the sources does not yield evidence that this is notable subject. Tvx1 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess while you're or we're at it, competitive weekly reality programs like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars are technically, not really "episodes" since they mostly deal with results (once you get right down to it) also. And exactly what do you mean, they aren't "presented as episodes" (you can't have it both ways)?  What else can be done outside of presenting a detailed summary of the games individually.  There's a subtle difference between a game within itself (at least from the personal point of view of the players and coaches) and the manner in which said game was covered by the media.  BornonJune8 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The content in the "Monday Night Football" results articles is not formatted as episode lists. Those articles aren't even tied to TV Networks at all. They are simple lists of the results of all football games which were ever played on monday. They are no appropriate for wikipedia in either format though. As you say the difference is subtle. To subtle to warrant dedicated wikipedia articles. Moreover, the results of all NFL games are already listed per team per season. Why should we list the non-sunday-afternoons again grouped by timeslot? Tvx1 20:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, they aren't even "tied to the TV networks"? Only one network at a time (ABC and later, ESPN) has broadcast NFL games on Monday nights so by default, they are tied to said networks (especially with the various incarnations of Sunday Night Football, be it on ESPN, TNT or NBC).  You're making it sound like there isn't a stark difference.  These articles aren't just about the New England Patriots or any other individual team for an entire season.  If you're going to go that route, then we might as well list which networks and what time and day of the week they played their 16 game season in their respective yearly articles.  Again, that isn't the main point!  It would kind of be like going through a needle in a haystack if you had to go further to look or guess which TV networks/day of the week/time any individual team played week in and week out during the reason.  BornonJune8 (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the formatting is a determining factor. The lists in question are not formatted as episode guides because that format would not make sense for this.  But Monday Night Football was a network institution for many years and received much coverage on its own, separate from the coverage of the individual teams playing on any given week. And so a relevant list that serves a similar purpose to a typical episode list makes sense to retain. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, if the issue with these particular items is the formatting of the lists, that is an editing concern and not a valid reason for deletion. 19:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I Agree with that so save this article if you can. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are eight articles being discussed here. Not just one. Tvx1 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that these IP users are coming here because they see a deletion notice while reading an article. This was the reason for my earlier observation that we have readers who do not want these pages deleted. We are here to serve the reader. Lepricavark (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Overall after reading all of the comments I still don't see a valid reason for deleting every single article present here. Each are notable in their own right the only issue I've seen is the Sunday/Thursday night articles are also labeled by broadcaster instead of years like the Monday Night Football articles. NFL Network Thursday Night Football results (2006–present) could be easily renamed Thursday Night Football results (2006–present) as each listing notes who was the broadcaster. All the Sunday Night Football articles can be merged/resturctured similar to the Monday Night Football articles.

Examples could be:
 * Sunday Night Football results (1987–2005)
 * Sunday Night Football results (2006–present)

This would eliminate the need to have the network in the title. However to claim that these articles are WP:NOT would consequently have an impact on other categories and smililar articles because lots of other editors could claim WP:NOT and reference this debate as precedent. This is not WP:OTHERCRAP this is a serious reason for concern. The initial nomination hinges on all eight articles fail WP:NOT and the fact that item #4 on WP:NOT was mentioned after the nomination seems like a stretch to me. To bring my point forward using the reason WP:NOT would impact Category:Sports records and statistics and similar categories and articles because someone can tag every article in this category as WP:NOT and cite this as a precedent. Now granted someone outside of the United States and Canada might not find any significant reasoning for these articles to be broken out based on day however to an American football fan the days are very important and the games are often referenced by the night they play. Even a non-sports fan like myself in the United States and in Canada would recognize a game by saying referencing a game by the night they played. Every team participates in the Sunday afternoon games except for when they receive a bye that week. So a lot of discussion and notability about the games come down to the night (Sunday, Monday, Thursday) they played. So to the point I have not seen a clear reason as to why these articles should be completely deleted. There are opportunities for merging them to deemphasize the specific broadcaster and to enhance the articles by providing information about the viewership of the games but no clear reason to completely delete them.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason the Sunday Night Football results articles are like that is because ESPN Sunday Night Football and NBC Sunday Night Football are different. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The main articles detail the difference between the two however the three Sunday Night Football results pages can be restructured down to two and given a generic name would be the only changes. We don't need the name of the broadcaster in the title they can be listed similar to NFL Network Thursday Night Football results (2006–present) with the broadcaster of that game listed in the table (either ESPN, NBC or TNT).  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  05:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

When is this going to end. 2600:8803:7A00:19:4089:9E6B:E460:AFF8 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When an admin comes along and makes a decision or re-lists it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This really, really clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS.  The data is essentially trivia, like a list of IIN numbers or weather reports.  The participants in the list are generally notable, but such lists as these do not meet the same bar.  Monday Night Football should exist, but we do not need a dozen articles for its proceedings; the same goes for the other shows.  FalconK (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How exactly is comparing weather daily results (which is much harder to remember/keep track off/keep a yearly record off and are strictly regional and therefore, varies from place to place) the same as a weekly nationally televised sporting event that is essential to a team's regular season record? Not every statistical data is the same!  BornonJune8 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the same in that it is indiscriminate. This page and the others like it list the complete proceedings, important or no, for all time.  FalconK (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Response there is a good amount of commentary throughout the list, thereby exceeding the requirements of WP:NOTSTATS "Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context" and "Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate ... consider placing them in tables to enhance readability" --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The commentary is also trivia. FalconK (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information (statistics); we do not exist to aggregate sporting results merely because the matches took place.  Sandstein   19:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Query how is it indiscriminate?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not indiscriminate--there is an extremely bright line for what we take and don't take in these pages. They easily meet all of our sourcing requirements, are reasonable lists and reasonable breakout articles.  If we are going to delete these, we should also go and delete all the lists of episodes for TV series.  This is exactly the same thing.  Hobit (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the lists related to Monday Night Football; delete the others. Monday Night Football records may not receive the same level of attention they did when it was "destination" TV, but they still receive disproportionate attention from the US sports press. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into existing NFL seasons as well as any significant games into te main Monday Night Football article. It's said best above on the comments regarding avoiding endless trivia. South Nashua (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, NOTSTATS, and most of these articles are poorly sourced (if at all) so there's no indication that they meet WP:LISTN. Lizard  (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2016 (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.