Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philly Special


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Philly Special

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A single play of a single game is not notable by itself unless there is some broader emphasis on a rule change like Tuck Rule Game or Holy Roller (American football). This should be redirected to the Super Bowl game in which it happened. Just because it helped them win the game, like every other scoring play did during the game, it’s hardly a reason to create an entire article for a single scoring play. JOJ Hutton  00:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Pennsylvania2. The person who calls for this page to be deleted is wrong. The Eagles would not have won the Super Bowl without this play. Further, it shows Coach Doug Pederson's aggressiveness and how it won him a Super Bowl. Aggressiveness is going to become more common in the league as a result of this play, which has been noted by many NFL experts. The filing of a trademark by 8 different groups including the Philadelphia Eagles, shows that this is very notable. Also, plays that changed a game, including the "Minneapolis Miracle", "Immaculate Reception", "Helmet Catch", "Beast Quake" and "Miracle at the Meadowlands" all have Wikipedia pages. While they did not have a direct impact on the rulebook they had a direct impact on the game, similar to the Philly Special. Many users have worked on this page and added details that it would be counterproductive to delete this article. Also, the play received lots of coverage from the sports media. Finally, the controversy following this play makes it worthy of an article. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While I agree this page should be kept (see below), saying this play changed the game is absolutely absurd, considering it was in the second quarter, the Eagles were leading before the play, and the Eagles would later give up that lead. Most of the other pages you mention are dissimilar to the Philly Special page in the fact that those ones are directly and solely responsible for the outcome of the game, while the Philly Special play is simply a touchdown scored on a relatively common trick play.  Frank Anchor Talk 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, look at Helmet Catch. While I'm not trying to pull a purely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS vote here, similar to that play there's more to this one that is giving it continued notability after the Super Bowl is over. For example that trademark battle going on over the term. If the play was just a single event fading into the wind like most things brought to AFD for similar reasons, there wouldn't be much debate over it continuing all over the place. Also, people are still debating the legality after the fact. Another factor is that this play created a Super Bowl record that never even existed beforehand to break, most touchdown passes (1 lol) caught by a quarterback in a Super Bowl. I'd link to some previous AFDs I found, but I fear that would reduce my comment into an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 01:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Seen a lot of newspaper articles on this play specifically, even after the event, and while coverage'll fade as time goes on, I think this passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable play, the play and this name are given a lot of coverage in outside reliable sources (including a cover story in Sports Illustrated with the play name as its title), and the fact that several organizations are attempting to trademark "Philly Special."  Frank Anchor Talk 19:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It's notable enough that the Philadelphia Eagles are filing a trademark to the "Philly Special" phrase and that this play solidified Nick Foles' household name status forever. Dwscomet (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG, and enough potential expansion remains where it'd be a shame to pare down and merge into Super Bowl LII. Two weeks after the game, Sports Illustrated had an extensive writeup on the origins of the play: "‘Philly Special’ Was Drawn Up By a Mad-Scientist Coach on a South Carolina Baseball Field in 2011".—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant media coverage focused on that individual play. As others have pointed out, it easily satisfies WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep this is one of the most shocking and memorable play calls in NFL history. It will live in NFL Lore and was the most amazing play in the most offensive heavy super bowl ever. 144.126.126.150 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This is one of the most surprising and shocking plays in NFL history. This play was a major factor in helping the Philadelphia Eagles defeat the New England Patriots 41–33 to win Super Bowl LII. There is still significant enough coverage of the play by multiple notable sources. Some notable sources include this article from The New York Times, this article from USA TODAY and this article from ESPN. My point is that there are plenty of secondary sources that adequately cover the play that should justify keeping this article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This play is going to be replayed over and over for a very long time. It's cemented as a part of NFL and Super Bowl lore.Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I am concerned about WP:TOOSOON, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOTNEWS here, and I do wish this article had been created a bit later to let us get some kind of sense of the long-tern historical impact this play is going to have. But, realistically, given what was at stake here, this is probably going to be the type of play that winds up being deserving of it's own article. And, the play itself has gotten plenty of coverage, like this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2018 (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.