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 merge to 1939 Kansas State Wildcats football team. Sandstein 08:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1939 Nebraska vs. Kansas State football game[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Its claim to notability is that it is the first homecoming football game televised. Homecoming games aren't especially notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge~~Delete~~ - Homecoming games can be very notable, especially before media and fast/easy transportation made following your team easier. But this game seems to me to fail NEVENT and certainly SPORTSEVENT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my !vote to Merge. After reading more recent !votes, I am indifferent between "merge and redirect" and "merge and delete" and agree the material should be in the pages on the teams from that year. I don't have an opinion on the correct redirect destination or if a redirect is necessary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT are "inclusive" and not "exclusive" -- meaning that they could be guidelines to determine notability of an sports event or other event as having passed, but certainly they are not infallible. Other guidelines still apply, such as the general notability guideline, and this subject clearly passes that measure with multiple third-party sources. There is more than one path to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. All of the sourcing available appears routine - the available newspapers which can be viewed make no mention of the game's importance (the fact it was a televised homecoming game) - and therefore also fails WP:GNG. Multiple third-party sources could be found for pretty much any major college football game, but the available sourcing doesn't indicate why this game is any more notable than any other game. SportingFlyer talk 21:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment feature articles (such as this one) about games are WP:NOTROUTINE and far beyond standard routine box scores.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I disagree - the simple fact the game was the highlight game of the week in several papers does not make the coverage any less routine, nor does the article itself highlight this game as something unique to be documented. If there were feature articles about the game 10, 20, 50 years after the fact, I'd be inclined to agree with you. SportingFlyer talk 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WP:ROUTINE guideline specifically defines routine coverage for sporting events as "sports scores" and excludes feature articles. It doesn't use the common definintion of "routine" but has specific measures. Otherwise, an argument could be made that "all coverage is routine"--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unfortunately, WP:ROUTINE also says: Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. From the sources I've seen, this appears to be a routine sports match, even if it was the first to be televised - none of the contemporary news sources seem to make much of its notability in that regard, though (though, to be fair, television was lightly adopted at the time of the game). Most major college football games will meet WP:GNG, but Wikipedia is also not news, and GNG is only a presumption: most college football games are deleted per policy, with the best discussion on the subject being Cbl62's post in this AfD: [1] I don't see anything which suggests this game isn't routine, albeit high-profile for the time. SportingFlyer talk 01:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it does say that. "May" is a key word and not "should" or "must" -- and the further definition of what would apply making that decision is the line "sports scores" and not feature articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1939 Kansas State Wildcats football team. This game isn't significant enough to warrant it's own stand-alone article, and there's a logical place for the information to go - the 1939 Kansas State season article which presently contains no details at all about this game. WP:PRESERVE, and all. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the conclusion, then shouldn't we also duplicate the information for the 1939 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team?? It would make much more sense to have one article rather than duplicated content in two articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since it was Kansas State's home game (and homecoming), it's much more relevant to their season article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that's the answer (and I don't believe it is), do we then duplicate the information in College football on television? And to the other articles that link to this one?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's already mentioned in that article, and I see no need to duplicate the information any further. SportingFlyer talk 02:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it mentioned... but the details are not provided because the other articles link to this article. This way, the details of the game and event are held in one article rather than three or ten or however many articles link to it. There's clearly enough information through current sources to create at least a good stub article (and more could be put in). And I disagree with the premise above that we have to wait 10, 20, or 50 years after an event to determine if it is notable or not. Nothing like that is listed in any of the guidelines that I have read.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree with needing to wait as well, in general. The reason why this game is arguably notable/more than routine is because of the first televised homecoming game. Unfortunately, none of the contemporary sources provided have mentioned the reason for its notability. To them, it was just an important, albeit routine, game. It makes sense, television wasn't widespread at the time, but as a result I'd want to see that other sources have treated it notably after the fact. SportingFlyer talk 21:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd say first that ignores the implication of the game for the outcome of the conference championship for the season, which the article and sources mention--but second, if the contemporary sources are necessary to indicate notability of an event long ago (such as this game) that implies that something once notable now is no longer notable. Yet a cornerstone of notability discussions is that "notability is not temporary." So that's where I get tied up seeing it differently.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I have a tangential question: Are there any sources that cover the event in-depth that were written more than a week before or after? Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I can find sources that mention the game, but all of the mentions save one are trivial. The non-trivial one recaps the contemporaneous article on the television broadcast: [2] There's also these trivial mentions I could find: [3] [4] [5] Notably (IMO), it's not mentioned here: [6]. There may be others? SportingFlyer talk 08:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT Kobra98 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ejgreen77 with 1939 Kansas State Wildcats football team. There is consensus among college football editors (reflected in College football single game notability discussion library) that coverage of regular season games is best handled in team/season articles except in rare cases where the game is truly historic or has enduring importance. This is not an issue of notability, but rather an issue of editorial judgment in how Wikipedia presents content about individual football games. Cbl62 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind, too, that this was not a game that was broadcast to the public. As noted in this source found by SportingFlyer, the game was broadcast from the field to the stadium press box, as there were no other receiver sets in Lawrence at the time. Cbl62 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Manhattan, Kansas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Cbl62 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ejgreen77. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ejgreen77 – makes more sense to have it on the Kansas State article than its own standalone article. PCN 02 WPS 16:29, 6 June 2018 (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.