Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Quick Lane Bowl broadcasters


 * 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   merge to Quick Lane Bowl. Rounded to merge; consensus at the target is obviously free to determine how much, if any, of the source is to be integrated. slakr \ talk / 09:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Quick Lane Bowl broadcasters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus1214 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Quick Lane Bowl. This hasn't even had its first game yet, so the problem with the standalone list is that there simply isn't any content to justify it yet. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ...note that by "merge", I don't mean these tables need to be included there, just that the fact of who is broadcasting this should be noted in the main article. Shouldn't take any more than a single sentence. postdlf (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Hasn't even been played yet, and barring a major scandal shutting down ESPN or a network like NBCSN deciding to buy the rights to this game somehow, this probably won't be seen anywhere but ESPN throughout its entire upcoming history. Also, I don't know a radio station that has ever broadcast these 'national' bowl game broadcasts unless it involves ESPN Radio and the playoff format du jour of the moment; Rutgers and NC will send their guys to broadcast it, and most everyone will listen to either of those broadcasts.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Quick Lane Bowl. Even if this bowl was 50 years old, this information belongs in the main article, not a standalone one. IMO, all of these "List of broadcasters" articles should be merged. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The game has not yet even been played.  There are no sources to suggest that the non-existent broadcasters of a yet-to-be-played bowl game passes WP:GNG or any other potentially applicable standard.  If and when the game is played and broadcast, the identities of the broadcasters could possibly be included in the article(s) about the individual games, but this stand-alone list doesn't pass muster. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL and Cbl62's explanation. This bowl game is not only non-notable, it's non-existent, and the list of future broadcasters is pure conjecture.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think anyone was claiming the Quick Lane Bowl itself is not notable; note that the parent article is not nominated here, and I think it would be a tough sell to delete it as it clearly passes GNG and it's significant as a college football bowl game. Note also that the first game is to be played December 26, 2014, and it's simply not credible to believe that a broadcaster hasn't been verifiably lined up a mere two weeks in advance (and, indeed, some quick googling confirms it's been scheduled to air on ESPN at least since August). CRYSTAL, therefore, does not apply here. The problem instead is we have a one-item list that simply has no reason to exist separately from the parent article. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct with regard to the present notability of the scheduled bowl game. A sloppy and mistaken vote and rationale on my part; I have struck my !vote and comment.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your good example. It's not often enough that people correct or retract themselves at AFD rather than just digging in their heels. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Better to recant than look like a complete idiot. I won't be commenting further in this discussion, but I would be satisfied with either a delete or merge, which, given the scarcity of noteworthy content, amounts to the same thing.  As X96lee15 said above, this whole category of lists deserves scrutiny at AfD.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 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.