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. Secret ^account 16:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Tennessee vs. Florida football game[edit]

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

Individual regular season college football 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 typical individual games. 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 the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2001 Florida Gators football team and 2001 Tennessee Volunteers football team). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historic Game. Final time Steve Spurrier and Phillip Fulmer faced each other as the head coaches for Florida and Tennessee respectively. It also had an exciting finish with Florida missing a late 2-point conversion which would have sent the game to overtime. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 22:23 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep widespread coverage clearly surpasses WP:GNG. Sources are in the article already, it's well written and cited. Each source surpasses basic "routine" coverage of sports scores and listings. Nominator has overstepped bounds by stating that "Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged" and that just isn't the case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged": Actually, Paul, that's been the position of WikiProject College football for at least five years, with ample deletions and merges at AfD made in support of that position. I think it's you who has changed your position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not. The closest is that an unlogged editor deleted "Varsity regular season" from WP:CFBN back in 2010-, citing "deleted regular varsity games, no consensus on that, discuss on talk page" -- there wasn't much discussion on the talk page, but clearly no consensus even at the project level was reached. Certainly not "discouraged" or "disfavored" at all. And yes, I have changed my position (since 2008 probably) because I used to argue that all games are notable and worthy of inclusion. That was incorrect, I now hold that WP:GNG should be the standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Delete It's "memorable" enough for a listing in the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry article, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The "widespread coverage" was about the same for a couple dozen more of Florida's big conference games in the 90s, including every meeting with Tennessee during that period - that's just how it was in the Spurrier era. However, as WP College football guidelines explain, that doesn't mean that each of those regular season games deserves its own article. As per the nominator, any worthwhile info should be added to the team's season articles and the stand-alone article deleted. --Zeng8r (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See answers at other current game AFD discussions. I've spent over 20 minutes this morning typing and editing and it's the same argument over and over. Even the nomination is cut and pasted, and so are many of the entries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

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.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routine game and merely one of hundreds played in college football every year. If the contest was notable to the careers of the coaches, it warrants mention in those coaches' articles, but does not justify a standalone. Reso lute 14:22, 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) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, it's more than a little bit ironic to object to "cut-and-paste" responses with . . . a cut-and-paste response. As the nominator, I object to any attempt to combine these AfDs 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 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 confused when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, your position is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically inconsistent with that position. If you really believe that this game article, and the other 15 articles pending at AfD, are individually notable and suitable, I urge you to review the guidelines that I have linked above, and start making actual arguments for the notability and suitability of the individual articles, instead of raising out-of-order procedural objections and demands. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are different but the "deletion" positions are the same--continually saying ROUTINE is something that the guideline itself says it is not. 17 AFDs with basically the same thought process is a valid reason to combine into one location to firm up the discussion. Thinking that combining the discussion makes your position weaker is not. Wikipedia is not about winning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to the specific 2001 Tennessee/Florida season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:59, 9 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.