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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game[edit]

2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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 summary of the game in the parent article, Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As I understand the nomination, it is suggesting a selective incorporation of limited details of each game into the main article Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. That seems fine to me, since the individual games aren't notable enough to overcome our usual presumption against articles about regular season games. However, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and the edit attribution requirements of Wikipedia's copyright policy, this means the can't be deleted, because the edit histories of the individual game articles need to be preserved, so all these articles need to be redirected and (selectively) merged rather than deleted. (This same point applies to the other similar opening-week series that have been nominated at AfD.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arxiloxos: Your point is well taken. I have already incorporated basic information from each of the individual games into the parent article, but if others want to include greater detail, including recycled language from the existing single-game articles, then REDIRECTS (which preserve the editing history) to the parent article would be a sensible outcome. I would support this, depending on how much actual material from the single-game articles is incorporated into the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is ridiculous. Too many nominations separately that should be logically bundled, and most if not all are games that have coverage far beyond routine listings anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bundling multiple AfDs often leads to no-consensus outcomes, and every game should be treated on its own merits. Exceeding WP:ROUTINE for a Division I college football game means more than typical post-game coverage. It means lasting coverage -- we have deleted single-game articles in the past with more and better coverage than this one. By the standard you suggest, virtually every Division I college football, NFL, NBA and MLB regular season game would pass GNG. That's not how ROUTINE has been interpreted, and that's not what was intended. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "lasting" is not in WP:ROUTINE. Don't make the guideline say more than it does.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Paul, NOTNEWS does not use the word "lasting"; it uses the words "enduring notability" instead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments on point, Paul, and then I am happy to leave these AfD discussions to our fellow editors . . . .

I have a suggested reading assignment of the notability guidelines for you:

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, "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)."

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." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.)

• Bottom line: there is an existing consensus that stand-alone articles should only be created for exceptional regular season games, that content should usually be incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles, and that regular season games should be of some greater significance if they are to have stand-alone articles rather than being incorporated into season, rivalry and games series articles. This consensus is borne out by the very limited number of stand-alone article for regular season games (about 98 in 145 years) that presently exist. And many regular editors want this material reincorporated into their rivalry articles (see 2001 Florida vs Tennessee football game) -- it's an entirely reasonable position, as well as the examples provided by SPORTSEVENT. It's perfectly clear from other references in WP:NSPORTS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS that regular season sports events are held to a different standard, that the definition of "routine" goes beyond "sports scores," and from WP:GNG that significant coverage is no guaranty of inclusion as a stand-alone article.
• As other editors have already pointed out to you in other pending AfD discussions, what constitutes "routine coverage" of CFB games when the ESPN and AP recaps of virtually every Division I FBS game equal or exceed the coverage of the subject of this particular AfD, it's apparent to most folks that that becomes the standard of ROUTINE coverage for CFB games. Otherwise, every regular season game is notable, every regular season game is suitable for a stand-alone article, and we have a real problem with the notability standards that needs to be addressed. I don't believe that's what it says, and I don't believe that's what was intended, and if we need to clarify this at the talk pages for GNG, NSPORTS and ROUTINE, I am confident that a strong majority of !voters will agree. That probably needs to happen in any event to put a stop to the argument in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Resolute 14:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As the nominator, I object to the proposal, however well intended, to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. The AfD nominator has that choice in the first instance, when he files the AfD. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game and/or the specific 2012 Tennessee/NC State/Auburn/Clemson season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator. WP:ROUTINE etc. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 00:57, 10 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.