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. The argument that coverage exceeds ROUTINE has not successfully made. If someone wants to use the information elsewhere I would be happy to userfy the page to them. J04n(talk page) 18:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia football game[edit]

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

Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, individual games are not inherently notable and must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion. Coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. While this article is the 100th Backyard Brawl, this game itself is not listed at List of historically significant college football games and only has two sentences in the introduction of Backyard Brawl. Merely being the 100th one is notability inherited. At the same time, while it was voted ESPNU's "Game of the Year", there's no evidence that every game of the year is inherently notable because of that and other than its inclusion at Template:ESPN College Football, there is no mention of this game (or of 'games of the year') at ESPN College Football (not even a list). Upsetting one team's championship hopes is notable to their season but the game itself is not. I think this content should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (2007 Pittsburgh Panthers football team and 2007 West Virginia Mountaineers football team) along with the series (Backyard Brawl) but it does not meet the criteria for a separate article. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not being listed in the List of historically significant college football games is not a reason to delete an article about a game. As far as I can tell, this game passes muster with WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But is the coverage past WP:ROUTINE levels of coverage? There's going to be plenty of coverage (online definitely) about recent college football games but is this game itself notable or just really a part of the seasons? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has far surpassed the routine measure, based on logic in essay WP:NOTROUTINE and the WP:ROUTINE guideline itself. Others disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication this is nothing but an ordinary football game, no lasting coverage. Secret ^account 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big upset, but only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Selected "game of the year" by one outlet isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Kante4 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but make sure we retain the content and put it into 2007 Pittsburgh Panthers football team, 2007 West Virginia Mountaineers football team, and Backyard Brawl. Jhn31 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this game not notable enough to have its own article, but the 2012 Texas A&M vs. Alabama football game is? And the 2005 USC vs. Notre Dame football game is? How is this game any less notable than these two? Kobra98 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kobra98: Actually, both of those articles are on a target list of CFB regular season games for future AfD discussions. I suggest that you review the list of CFB regular season game articles that have been deleted at AfD in the last six weeks: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Articles for Deletion: regular season single-game articles. Of the 24 articles nominated for AfD, 23 were deleted, and one was a non-consensus "keep". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage is routine for an upset victory, there is really no lasting significance or impact in later years, beyond raising the fortunes of the Pitt football team, which did quite well after that season but has since dipped back into mediocrity. I'd suggest focusing editing efforts on the 2007 Pittsburgh Panthers football team article, and writing about the impact of this game on the team in subsequent seasons . That article is bare-bones stats atm. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 20 November 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.