Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami v. Nebraska


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Miami v. Nebraska
Yet another copyvio. It has been edited but it is clearly taken from here - towards the end look for 'With no overtime, if Nebraska had kicked the extra point, it would have been doubtful if there was a voter in America that wouldn't have voted the Huskers the national champions.' for example. Delete BlueValour 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that it would be very difficult to cleanup with confidence. All the article is taken from the source. IMHO it is not worth putting WP at risk simply to try to keep one article. The revision to my example sentence is 'With no overtime, if Nebraska had gone for the extra point, Nebraska would have been the Concensus National Championship'. Sorry, but this doesn't wash. BlueValour 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The mentioned copyvio problem has been addressed by creating a completely new article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. Individual game articles are rarely kept unless they contained a very notable single play, which this does not. If this were kept, an out-and-out summary of the game is not encyclopedic and it would have to be trimmed down considerably and have its notability asserted by something other than a point-of-view assertion. ("...was considered one of the greatest games of all time"? By who?) I follow college football and don't see a good reason why this particular game really needs its own article. Plus, I think the full game summary is still intellectual property (copyrighted.) They give warnings about this on the TV broadcasts. Grand master  ka  06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *Delete per Grand  master  ka. I appreciate the passion of Summonmaster13 in defending the article, but his belief the game is "too sacred" only points out the POV inherent in its creation. And frankly, what I'm reading in ~ trialsanderrors vote to keep, is to rewrite the article enough that it doesn't exist in its current form or context in any case (remove copyvio, cut down on the breathless tone, rewrite to fit into article on game theory). (apologies to ~ trialsanderrors if I'm reading too much into your nomination.) Tychocat 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I was the original creator of this article, and it was a VERY long time ago this article was created. Now that this message was added, I decided to alter virtually every word, to make this completely original. I even changed sentence structures, and tried to make this as close as possible to feature status. I believe that this is an ULTA, ULTRA important article, that is of incredible significance. It is one of the most important College Football articles out there. This article needs to be kept, at any costs. It is too sacred.--Summonmaster13 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, now that it's been fixed and has its significance explained better. Grand  master  ka  03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, get rid of possible remaining copyvio and cut down on the breathless tone. The game, or rather the decision by the Huskers coach is a popular case in game theory for failure to reason ahead, e.g. Dixit and Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically p. 53-4. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes. My cite was only to point out that this game has some relevance to others than fervent Huskers and Canes fans. My editorial comments, other than the one about copyvio, are sidenotes and not conditions for keeping. Clearly this article has serious POV and tone issues as of now, but those are not grounds for deletion. About copyvio, someone other than me should decide whether User:Summonmaster13's recent edits solved the problem. Oh, and I didn't say this should be rewritten as a game theory article. I can see that readers of the Dixit-Nalebuff text come here to read about the football aspects of this momentous decision. In any case, I added a section on the game theory aspect. ~ trialsanderrors 10:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. Apologies, again.  Tychocat 11:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure a full game summary is still under copyright and requires written permission from at least the NCAA... At least, I know that's how it works in every major pro sport in the United States. Whether college football is any different or if anything about that aspect of copyright law has changed since 1984, I'm not sure. Grand  master  ka  14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - My nomination changed after seeing the rewrite. Hope I've got the acceptable format to indicate this.  Tychocat 09:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with a rename Another one of the more notable college football games of all time. The page would be better served with a name like Miami v. Nebraska 1984 or Orange Bowl (1984) to better specify that one game. --DarkAudit 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep after remaining copyvio is removed, and rename to 1984 Orange Bowl. Kirjtc2 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - but with some provisos. Agree with the rename something like 1984 Orange Bowl.  And needs a rewrite to adhere to NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
 * Keep and Rename to 1984 Orange Bowl after addressing copyvio issues, per Kirjtc2  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, and copy edit the crap out of it. Johntex would love this one for his new college football portal. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with BaseballBay. Keep, improve. This is interesting for Orange Bowl fans. Julie Fitzgerald
 * Comment I cut the article down to the key moments and added a stub tag. I think it is better to extend from here than to edit from User:Summonmaster13's version for the POV and copyright problems discussed above. ~ trialsanderrors 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - spoilsport :-) this is just what I was doing in my sandbox. More seriously, I am happy with Keep and Rename provided there is no suggestion of introducing a play-by-play account that would leave WP open to a copyvio (unless the editor watched the match and describes the unfolding of the game from his/her personal experience). BlueValour 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Baseball, Baby. JChap (Talk) 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this article is kept, it must be rewritten from scratch. Paraphrasing the original sentence-by-sentence doesn't make it OK. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done already. See above. ~ trialsanderrors 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, then. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 15:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep everything Trunk 18:17, 14 July 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.