Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail Murray

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.  JGHowes  talk 02:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Murray

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Hail Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my view, it doesn't pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Even though there are many sources that talk about the catch, I feel like they still count as WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's nothing to indicate that this Hail Mary is more notable compared to any other Hail Mary or other exciting play in the regular season.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the fact that NOTNEWS is one of the weakest rationales for deletion, a detailed reading of RECENT (which, again is not a policy that should drive a deletion discussion) actually makes a good case for keeping this, because it undoubtedly passes the GNG and arguing otherwise is silly: "[B]y documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources will hopefully be found and used later." The sources we have in the article are reliable and numerous, and User:WuTang94 has added more sources that detail the continued significance of the play. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a far greater likelihood that this winds up being nothing more than an interesting footnote in an otherwise humdrum non-playoff season for the Cardinals. Regardless, it's way, way, way WP:TOOSOON to be going around calling this one of the greatest NFL plays of all time. That's some ridiculous kind of hyperbole going on, there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see any significant reason this is any different than any other major game-winner we have a page for. Its sourcing is impeccable. All the rationale that has been cited for deleting or redirecting is flimsy. There wasn't a page created for the Derek Carr game-winner against the Jets (to my knowledge), so clearly all the sigcov this received is indicative of its notability and importance. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And a further point re hyperbole: Maybe it is. But it doesn't matter here. It's not Johnny Cards Fan saying that the play is one of the greatest Hail Marys of all time. It's one of the oldest and most significant American sports publications saying that it is "one of the greatest game-winning Hail Mary passes in NFL history." The source says what it says. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. As a Buffalo Bills fan I wouldn't mind if the page were deleted but jokes and bias aside, I think it merits keeping. Agreed with Etzedek24 that coverage is aplenty per WP:SIGCOV, plus a Hail Mary Pass to win a game is very rare, in addition to the manner in which it occurred in this instance. Other similar regular season plays that eventually became classic moments in NFL history include the River City Relay, Miracle in Motown (another Hail Mary play) and the Miracle in Miami.--WuTang94 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Honestly can the Cardinals ever have anything? Why is this even being considered being deleted? The Packers have a page for their Hail Mary in Detroit a few seasons ago, see Miracle in Motown. Why don’t we get one!? This is special for Arizona and could end up being the difference between them making and not making the playoffs. Other last second plays like Minneapolis Miracle and Miracle in Miami from the past few seasons have pages. The Hail Murray is just as special as those plays and was just as viral. The Hail Murray will likely go down as the play of 2020 in all the NFL. Also by the way, there’s even a page for the Fail Mary! Game winning Hail Marys are extremely rare and if you take down the Hail Murray then you definitely also have to take down the Fail Mary, Miracle in Motown, etc . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4B00:A880:452C:71F3:B5DD:43CC (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OTHERSTUFF etc etc (ceci n'est pas un arguement), but how is this case functionally different from any others? WP:OSE's nutshell says that precedential value isn't automatically an invalid rationale. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you want to delete this, then delete all iconic NFL articles like Fail Mary, Miracle in Motown, Miracle in Miami, etc since its not WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Although Etzedek24 has his reasoning is kind of correct, the NFL and multiple sports outlets always talk about this play every other week and what everyone on here says, it will probably affect both the Bills and Cardinals in playoff seeding and Murray is trying to trademark the play. Once a lot of media outlets and announcers dub iconic moments like Malice at the Palace, a Wikipedia article will usually be made regarding the play. Although I can see it being deleted but like I and everyone said, it has a lot of significant coverage and will most likely will be the #1 play of the season. Swagging (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Swagging: Do you have evidence that "the NFL and multiple sports outlets always talk about this play every other week"? That type of coverage is what is desired here, and would pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT as sustained coverage outside what would typically be covered for a routine event. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eagles247: The "Hail Murray" was mentioned here in this recent article. Specific quote: "Since the miraculous 'Hail Murray,' the Arizona Cardinals have stumbled, losing three straight games and falling out of a playoff spot.". There was also this from the Buffalo News quoting NFL Network just before the Bills-49ers game, plus the pylon used during the play was sent to the Pro Football HoF according to this from the HoF website. I guess you could argue that this catch was like Odell Beckham Jr.'s one-handed grab back in 2014 which never received a Wikipedia article because the Giants wound up losing anyways, but if anything, it can also be argued that the "Hail Murray" is just as notable as plays like the River City Relay and Miracle in Miami, with the Saints and Dolphins also going to miss the playoffs, to counter Ejgreen77's point about the Cards potentially missing the playoffs.
Though, if it is indeed WP:TOOSOON and we should wait until the "Hail Murray" wins awards such as "Best play of the year" in the postseason awards, I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying this article until then. But what made this play outstanding was that Hopkins literally out-jumped and fought through three defenders to catch the ball and snatch a near-last-second win, which you don't see very often.--WuTang94 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to draftify it. In my opinion, the fact that national periodicals like Sporting News and The Washington Post (both non-local) devoted articles to the win (in addition to what you have already said), that satisfies the particular in WP:NSPORTSEVENT criterion regarding coverage: "especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved." We can quibble about "front page" but the widespread national coverage is strong evidence for keeping this as it is. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policies are WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:TOOSOON. It's impossible for us to evaluate the long-term significance of this play because it literally happened less than a month ago. If it still looks like one of the most significant NFL plays of all time at this time next year, sure, go ahead and create an article. But, creating one right now is simply way too soon. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Etzedek24: The Washington Post appears to write individual articles for every single NFL game. Here are their stories for last week's entire slate of games: Falcons-Saints, Browns-Titans, Lions-Bears, Bengals-Dolphins, Vikings-Jaguars, Colts-Texans, Raiders-Jets, Giants-Seahawks, Rams-Cardinals, Patriots-Chargers, Packers-Eagles, Broncos-Chiefs, Washington-Steelers, Bills-49ers, Cowboys-Ravens. It's WP:ROUTINE coverage of an NFL game and does not rise to the level of significance to pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagles247: The key difference here, if you spent more than 5 seconds looking at those many links, is that while yes, the WaPo publishes routine game recaps, that the article I cited above was specifically about the play in question, not a general game recap in the vein of the refs you have bombed in here. Everything you have cited is a very short game recap which is functionally different from the detailed article they wrote about the Hail Murray. The coverage is there and the way it's being ignored is mind-boggling. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another thing that I believe works against the long-term significance here is the circumstances under which this play occurred. This play occurred during a random regular season game (unlike things like the Minneapolis Miracle or the Music City Miracle that occurred in the postseason) between two out-of-conference opponents who rarely ever play each other (unlike something like the Miracle in Motown, which took place as part of the wider Lions–Packers rivalry). Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per arguments made by Ejgreen77. I actually don't think that Miracle in Motown or Miracle in Miami have long-term significance either (though they did win Play of the Year awards), but that would be a different discussion. I would argue that Fail Mary has long-term significance, as it hastened the end of the 2012 NFL referee lockout. Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Natg 19: Miracle in Motown does have significance as the longest Hail Mary completed in NFL history (which should have been put in that page's intro), and I think there was another sentence or something saying that the Hail Murray was just the second occurrence in which two go-ahead touchdowns happened within the final 40 seconds of any NFL game, hence somewhat meeting WP:NSPORTSEVENT. My biggest concern about this play meriting a Wikipedia article is that playoff seeding has yet to be solidified for either the Cardinals or Bills, hence WP:TOOSOON and WP:RECENT, but media coverage of the Hail Murray has been ample, hence meeting the WP:SIGCOV criteria.--WuTang94 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Ejgreen. It is too recent to know if the play will have long term significance. Redirecting these games has precidence, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State Miracle.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: If the page does get redirected, what would the threshold be for restoring it? Winning play of the year? --WuTang94 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well considering that there aren't articles for every "play of the year" (an objective term at that), or that there is no benchmark for including "plays of the year." I think Ejgreen's point about being the circumstances. Just because WP:ILIKEIT as an OU fan, doesn't mean it should be included. It might be several years before we know for sure. A play on words doesn't mean it should be included. He might have several over the course of his career.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The widespread, non-routine coverage means it should be included. The question is whether or not this play is independently notable based on the provided sources, which, in my opinion, it undoubtedly is. To WP:THREE (okay, four) it, you have a Sporting News article that calls it one of the best Hail Marys of all time, an article from a paper of record specifically about the play in question (beyond a routine game recap), recognition from the league as a "miracle play" (through NFL Films) and recognition from the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which has already put on display an end zone pylon from the game. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Etz, you can WP:BADGER everyone that disagrees with you all you want but this just hasn't developed WP:SUSTAINED or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE yet! We have precedence (which I cited) that suggests that we should hold off.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I seem like a badger (which is fair, since I am a Wisconsinite), it is because it seems like the proceedings here have ignored the improved sourcing (which points in the direction of continued coverage) of the article, besides my replying to a ping and comment on my own comment. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as others have stated feels more appropriate to redirect this page. SIGCOV is clearly met, but if that's the criteria then many plays would qualify no? Seems to fall into the "black swan event" right now, but that may change. Tennis Anyone?Talk 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant play in a significant and thrilling game. I believe that this game, which already has a nickname, should be kept. This is also a career highlight in the young career of Kyler Murray and it should be noted as such.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is news coverage of this play still to this day, so I do believe it has enough significance and importance. This play alone will be a career highlight by Kyler Murray and DeAndre Hopkins. Hopkins made one of the best catches of his career. From the scramble to avoid a sack, to the remarkable throw before running out of bounds and an amazing catch that will be talked about for ages, this play was truly a masterpiece. — CryptoKey98 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any examples of this continuing coverage? All the coverage I've seen ends around 3 weeks ago. Everything after that is just passing mentions of the play in Cardinals game previews.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the additions above and in the article by User:WuTang94. One is from last week. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 03:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming mentions of the play in articles were counted as coverage. In my opinion, the play being mentioned in game previews, shall not be disregarded. It should add to it's importance/significance as the play is still actively being discussed about a month later. Also the play is mentioned in this game preview, not just the Cardinals game previews. — CryptoKey98 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@UCO2009bluejay: Can you point to an RSN discussion or similar perhaps WikiProject discussion about SB Nation? The RSN discussion I looked at was from 2013 and, I daresay, a bit outdated (it also called Bleacher Report unreliable, which is not the case in 2020). I'm wary of this moving into WP:JUSTABLOG territory, since SB Nation does have (now, at least, if they didn't before) significant editorial oversight. The other things you've mentioned seem to be cited in context for verifiability purposes (particularly the tweets and AA post), not necessarily purposes of establishing notability. And one YouTube video comes from the NFL itself, which should be treated accordingly under WP:RSPYT. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:27, 16 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hail_Murray&oldid=994700108"