Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

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. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual regular season college football kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-season game article should be Deleted, ~~and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph~~ and a handful of highlights from this game should be incorporated into a short summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. (Reason copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator's exceptionally well written explanation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing particularly special happened in this game. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wrong forum~~ As per WP:MAD, the proposal in this nomination is not only against policy, it is a violation of our licensing agreements. As per WP:BEFORE, issues that can be fixed with ordinary editing are not suitable for AfD, which is also found in the policy WP:Deletion policy. This discussion can continue on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: Unscintillating, the AfD nomination has been revised to clarify that the proposal is not to import existing content from the article to be deleted, but incorporate highlights from the game itself into a brief summary in the parent article. In fact, this has already been done (please see Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit I am restoring the nomination. Please see WP:TPO. The rule that allows changes to other people's words is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The next rule is "Don't change the meaning". There are ways you can use [insert begins here] etc., but this is still confounding that you are changing someone else's thoughts at the same time you are confounding my !vote, and the !vote of one other editor who supported the original nomination. You probably should let the nominator and !voter change for themselves that which is their opinion. You can use your own !vote space to represent your personal opinion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The next point is that everyone here stipulates that there is a valid redirect target for this topic if it is found to lack wp:notability. Deleting this edit history would prevent non-admins from using this resource without taking the time of administrators. Please either cite content problems such as WP:NOT with the content, or change your !vote to "wrong forum" to avoid any possibility of a loss of this edit history to non-admins. Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I apologize for any aggravation I may have caused you. My intent was not to confound your !vote, but simply to address the concern, at a very early stage of this AfD, raised in your comments. Did you see the parenthetical "Reason copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game" in the nomination above? Please see the linked AfD nomination, and its edit history, and please note who the author of the text is in the edit history. I would not take such liberties under normal circumstances, but the words are mine, this is a follow-on AfD nomination to delete the last remaining of seven related single-game daughter articles, five of which have already been deleted. The nominator, with my approval, was simply recycling the previous AfD nomination (my words) to accomplish the final AfD quickly. (Hence the inside joke, regarding the "exceptionally well written nomination," in my "delete" comment above.) Odd circumstances. I certainly have no problem with your desire to preserve the nominated article's history with a redirect (rather than a simple deletion), but no text has been imported verbatim into the parent article, and the one-paragraph summary suggested in the nomination above already exists (please see Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game).

As for the policy reasons for deleting or redirecting this article, they are set forth in detail in (a) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, (b) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, (c) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, (d) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game, and (e) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. I hope you can now better understand what I was trying to accomplish. Again, I apologize for any confusion caused. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a list of other guidelines that support the deletion or redirect of this article:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, SPORTSEVENT states "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" is probably suitable for a stand-alone article.

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is WP:N a reason for deletion WP:Notability is a guideline. WP:Notability is a test to determine if a topic has attracted enough attention from the world at large over a period of time to merit a standalone article, as compared with a lesser role in the encyclopedia within a larger topic. Deletion for wp:notability is an exception case that requires two conditions: (1) the topic is non-notable, and (2) there is currently no suitable larger topic within which to maintain any of the WP:RS material from the article. No one is arguing to retain the article as standalone, and there is no objection to retaining the topic in the encyclopedia within a larger topic. Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER a reason for deletion WP:NOTNEWSPAPER states, "news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics". It also says, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", but the word "inclusion" there says nothing about whether the topic is standalone or a subtopic. There is consensus here that the topic should be included in the encyclopedia, so WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As above. I think that the article suffers from a total lack of inline citations, and only has the one external link. Nor do I agree with creating event articles prior to the event. While these two points could contribute to a deletion argument, I don't think that those are the arguments being made. Redirect without deletion creates no problems and is consistent with the consensus, while delete and redirect prevents future review by non-admins of the history of this article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally, single games are not notable, and this one has not been demonstrated to be sufficently notable--GrapedApe (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote is not clear to me. Are you claiming WP:IAR? Are you in favor of Wikianarchy? Are you invoking WP:Pocket consensus?
Also, should a delete result of the topic here mean that administrators should also remove mention of the topic at the target article? Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I don't really have a strong preference whether this article is redirected (with the edit history preserved) or outright deleted (with the loss of edit history). My concern is that an article that should not have been created, be removed and that the distilled substance, if not the verbatim content, should be incorporated as a brief summary in the parent article -- and I am confident that is going to happen. I have reviewed the DRV and other linked discussions you have provided. While I am sympathetic to your argument about preserving edit history whenever possible when a logical redirect is available, I see no clear-cut consensus that requires this outcome, with recent discussions going in both directions. If you want a strong precedent that supports your preferred outcome in a majority of applicable cases, I suggest that you need to prepare an RfC with Wikipedia-wide notices requesting participation in the RfC. Most of the participants in these recent AfDs regarding stand-alone articles for regular season CFB games are long-time WP sports editors; we know these stand-alone articles do not conform with our own prior discussions (and arguably our long-standing consensus) which are also supported by the various guidelines cited by me above. To date, 19 of 20 of these regular season articles have been deleted based on the arguments presented by !majorities varying from 6:2 to 9:1; this is the 20th and only remaining article from the 20. Bottom line: individual AfDs have very limited effect as precedents, and are not the correct place to try to change the guidelines or make policy. Regardless of the outcome, this AfD has no binding effect on future AfDs. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to continue the discussion on my user talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect - Can't see why this would be an exception to our logical and well-explained attitude towards these types of games. The nomination sums it up well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.