Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hilltopper Play


 * 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Hilltopper Play

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Article has multiple issues, the main one being WP:Notability. The term should perhaps be included in an American Football glossary if there is one but it is too obscure to deserve an article in its own right. Jack | talk page 19:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was the play that took the Super Bowl LI into overtime, with the most renowned current NFL coach (possible GOAT) borrowing a trick play from a FBS team, in front of over 111 million people in the US and billions worldwide. That's a little too notable to be included in a glossary of American football plays or merely mentioned in the main Super Bowl LI article. As far as trick plays go, this is a big deal. If this article survives AfD, Super Bowl LI should mention the play by name and wikilink it. I started intending to comment, but by the time I finished writing this and reading the related articles, I'd convinced myself to say "keep" - maybe a weak keep, but a keep is a keep. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I restored the other category, Category:American football plays as the article states it was notably used in the Boca Raton Bowl. So I think in this case we shouldn't diffuse. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I was thinking that Super Bowl plays are a sub-category of American football plays. Being a Super Bowl play doesn't imply that it was never otherwise used in American football. BTW, what do you think of it being described as an unofficial trick play in intro? Are there any official trick plays? I think that word "unofficial" needs to come out. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and I did fix the parent categorization of Category:Super Bowl plays -- which I'm not even sure should exist -- accordingly. Just that the article states it was used notably in an NCAA game, too. So maybe someone presumably searching for this doesn't know it was used in the SB? I've really no strong views on it and you can change anything you like. I agree with you that I don't see how there can be official/unofficial trick plays? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete It didn't really "take Super Bowl LI into overtime." It was the last play of regulation, but while it caught the Falcons off guard, it didn't result in a score, and the game was already tied at that point. Had it somehow scored the game winning touchdown in regulation and prevented overtime, then it would clearly be notable (see, for instance, the Music City Miracle), but we don't have articles for every failed trick play, and the trick play failed in that it didn't result in a score like it was supposed to. Now, failed football plays can be notable under exceptional circumstances (see Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1998 NFC Championship Game for one example) but I don't really think this qualifies. First, the Patriots won the game in the end, so the play's failure really didn't have a sustained impact. Second, the play occurred in a situation where it was highly unlikely the Patriots would win in regulation to begin with, so the fact that the play meant they didn't win in regulation and the game went into overtime isn't particularly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The simple fact that it's a corny goofy thing doesn't prevent it from passing WP:GNG which it seems to do based on sources proviced. There's some cleanup needed to the article, and it will probably just be a stub but that's okay.  Weird and apparently notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It did not result in a score and did not change the outcome of the game, if we had articles for every non-notable play then Wikipedia would be full of such articles. Ρο Βουκ (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the "results" of the play have no bearing on the decision to keep or delete, it is the coverage of the play that points toward notability. Lots of coverage of a poorly-executed attempt leads to a notable poorly-executed event.  I believe that is the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much risk here that Wikipedia becomes the validating force for the existence of this topic.  Fails WP:NOTNEWS.  Wait till it is in a book.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Question I have no understanding of your reasoning. Can you please elaborate?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I located applicable text at WP:Fringe theories, relating it back to WP:SYNTH. This is quoted from
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research.
 * Notes
 * Notes


 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To me, passing WP:GNG proves that it isn't original research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into fumblerooski. When I saw the play live I immediately thought it was a fumblerooski, and I'm still not convinced it's different enough to warrant its own article. It's just a variation of a well-known trick play. Lizard  (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's nothing at all like a fumblerooski. The ball isn't fumbled and picked up by the lineman, it's handed off to the running back. Not even close. Strongly oppose merge to that target. Smartyllama (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I really wanted to !vote keep, but there is simply not enough in-depth coverage of this to show that it passes notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:55, 28 February 2017 (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.