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.
Comment this seems an article under development--I see no sign that the new editor was given an explanation that it was necessary to add some text as well as an infobox--the only notices left were the rather uninformative form notices. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we are not going to have featured revisions or any sort of peer review than I am of the opinion that the onus should be on the article creator to produce something of use. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since deletion is not cleanup, this is just a stub in need of material, if it can be determined that source material exists to fill out the article. I can find plenty of detailed recaps and reviews of this specific game, including [1], [2], [3] and [4]. The last one is telling since its a detailed story about the game and its impact written 4 years after it was played, showing clear lasting relevence. WP:BEFORE is always nice. --Jayron32 04:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That "four years after" recap says that the Bruins upset over the Trojans made them think they might gain more prominence in LA college football, but that didn't happen. If it had actually been the start of some major change, I'd support keeping this. It seems like an otherwise non-notable upset, a blip on the radar. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references given here are routine coverage that every single college football receives. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy obviously a work in progress that is not ready for mainspace.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absent something truly historic in nature, I am inclined to discourage single game articles. The usable content can be merged into the 2006 UCLA team and 2006 USC team articles, both of which have a space established for a discussion of this game. I think the season articles are the best way to deal with this material, rather than creating more and more single game articles. Cbl62 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by Cbl62 immediately above. I could not have said it better or more succinctly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Cbl62. Space already in the team and Victory Bell (USC–UCLA) articles making this article redundant and unnecessary. DocTree (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single games aren't notable unless they're either championships or the very first game when a sport is invented (or something else along that line), which in this case the title doesn't specify. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2012 (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.