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 keep. A breathtaking about of verbiage for such an unimportant decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 College Football Championship Game

2015 College Football Championship 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)

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I originally proposed deletion, but the tag was removed because "The game is scheduled per the official site". All that is known is that this game will be played in January 2015. There is not enough about it now to satisfy an article for it for the duration of the year. There is no information on the venue. There is no information on the teams (nor will there be until later this year). There appears to have been a trend for creating articles as soon as the previous year's championship bowl has finished but this is ridiculous. There's nothing known about this other than it will take place in around 350 days time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption from sockpuppets
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose sorry "friend", but it is listed on the website. ActionFigureLover (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger oppose not a violation, it is sourced thus valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.49.97 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of these arguments mean anything. All that is known about this game is that it will take place on a certain date and in a certain city. That's not enough for an article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that ActionFigureLover and the IP 166.205.49.97 are the same person, as both seem to be disrupting the same pages as the other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing! this user, Ryulong, crudely entered my domain and violated it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartUM (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment ur allegations are baseless. And how come Bleach is being involved in this?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.49.97 (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed as I examine the subject article it is hard to see a single fact that isn't already covered in the existing Playoff article. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have this too: College Football Championship Game. JohnInDC (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One is on the "system" that includes semi-finals and the other is on the Championship games. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is merely that the generalities relating to the 2015 game are abundantly covered in those two articles, while the specifics are completely unknown. Indeed I bet we know as much now about the 2016 and 2017 games as we do about the 2015 contest, but creating those articles today would be ridiculous. There's no stronger case to be made for the 2015 game. JohnInDC (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I maintain that it's not too soon for this article, I wonder if it should be expanded to cover the entire 2015 College Football Playoff. Similarly, should College Football Championship Game be merged into College Football Playoff? For college basketball, we don't have dedicated articles for the Final Four as a whole and each yearly Final Four; see Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really mystified - what is the article going to say between now and then? A collection of rumors and supposition - "ESPN wonders whether the SEC will regain the national championship in 2015" or "SI speculates that this could be the year that the Big 10 finally comes out of its doldrums"? I don't see how it could be anything more than a collection of opinion pieces and link-bait headlines. It's not like, say, the 103d meeting of two teams in a rivalry game, where in addition to knowing the when and where, you know which teams will be playing in it. Right now anything that there is to say about the Football Championship Game is conceptual and speculative, and has nothing to do with the actual 2015 contest between the winners of the playoffs. I get that articles for upcoming events are created before the event takes place but here, in this game, there's no there there! Help me to visualize what the actual article about this game is going to look like between now and, I dunno, mid-season - and, as I said above, what this article is going to have that isn't already quite clearly set forth in the two already existing articles on the general subject. JohnInDC (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can go into broadcast rights, scheduling, events leading up to, predictions (which are there), reference quotes from coaches and sportswriters about it, scheduling ramifications, etc. But even without that, if it's just a stub that's okay. Stub articles are valid articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it just strikes me as silly, and confusing as well, to have a specific separate article for a contest where the contestants (indeed even their conferences) aren't even known, and for which literally all the other information can be found (or trivially added) to the broader, existing pages. Mendaliv's suggestion above for a Redirect seems like the most sensible solution by far (and I'm adjust my vote accordingly). JohnInDC (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It's Silly" is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Silliness is not in and of itself a reason to delete or redirect. But other reasons I offered, e.g. there are no actual additional knowable facts about the 2015 contest, and the 2015 Game article is already completely comprehended by the general article, seem like pretty good ones. JohnInDC (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "there are no actual additional knowable facts about the 2015 contest" do you mean besides "broadcast rights, scheduling, events leading up to, predictions (which are there), reference quotes from coaches and sportswriters about it, scheduling ramifications, etc.", or are you dismissing all those subjects I listed as invalid?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are either not "additional", because they are already present in the general article (e.g. broadcast rights, scheduling) or they are not facts about it (contestants, score, playing conditions, key plays) but speculation (predictions, quotes from coaches), and it's not Wikipedia's place to summarize that kind of, well, fluff, a year ahead of the actual event. Again I ask, what would this article look like? "The 2015 championship game will be played on thus-and-such a date at this location, between the winners of the preceding playoffs; experts speculate that the teams to meet in the game may be representatives of the SEC and Pac-10, whereas others imagine an ACC/SEC matchup again"? I don't mean the question facetiously, but seriously. What is going to go in the article, 4 months before the relevant season has even begun, that isn't 1) already elsewhere here or 2) just a reprint of one or another columnist's or coach's opinion? It looks more like Flipboard than an encyclopedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everthing in Wikipedia is based on what is published somewhere else. Please see the policy on Wikipedia:No original research. We cannot use original research, now you're saying we're not supposed to use the works of the media either? Wikipedia is not about nothing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I'm saying, first, that broad categories of information that do not relate specifically to the 2015 game are or will be covered already at College_Football_Playoff or College Football Championship Game - stuff like broadcast rights, the playoff format, venue, the team selection process, critiques of or plaudits for the process. Duplication of information already legitimately in the encyclopedia is not a reason to make a new article. Second I am saying that anything else we may see or read right now, or for a few months yet, about the 2015 game is, by virtue of the complete lack of information about the contest itself, going to be speculation and opinion by commentators, or posturing by coaches (e.g. "D'Antonio says his Spartans are ready for Arlington!"). There's no focus there, nothing being reported; it's just formless talk - the article would be nothing more than a collection of Things People Are Saying About This Eventual Game, really finally nothing more than a link farm with quotes, and most decidedly not an encyclopedia article. Contrast 2022_FIFA_World_Cup, which is still a long ways off in time but where there are matters to report: Controversies about how the venue was chosen, potential corruption, the actual stadia in which the games will be played, whether alcohol will be allowed, that whole fuss about whether the tournament will be moved to the winter. Again - I have trouble imagining what is there to say about this game, right now, that isn't already in an article, and which isn't just sawdust and padding. I don't think it's a Wikipedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Items such as broadcast rights and preseason media coverage can change from one year to the next. It would be clumsy to hold such information in one "main" article when it actually may apply only to the the year-by-year sub-articles. I'm not arguing to duplicate the information, I'm saying it should be moved to where it belongs. There's also in my view no problem in reporting on the speculation in the media. Yes, it's speculation, but it is a fact that there is speculation. It's a good stub article with the ability to grow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There should absolutely be year-by-year sub-articles. But not until there is something to be said about those years, which we don't have here; not yet. Again the word "silly" springs to mind - take out everything in the article that 1) isn't yet known or 2) covered quite sufficiently somewhere else and what's left? I'm not sure it's even a full sentence! JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is just way too soon for this article, particularly when there is no longer an extensive history behind it following the name change.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hah - I PRODed this one already - thanks for the tip! JohnInDC (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is. A precedent has been set for other sporting events (i.e. future Super Bowls and Final Fours that have the same information) with just a when and a where. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, dentifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability [...], and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." The concept of this game as a future sporting event with a definitive when and where brings it to the same level of notability of other articles that were created based on this precedent. Frank AnchorTalk 18:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to delete. A redirect to College Football Championship Game , which already contains the information in the article as it stands, would be appropriate. When someone gets around to collecting and summarizing the additional facts and information about the 2015 contest, they can easily undo the redirect. JohnInDC (talk) 18:08, 17 January 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, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for no other reason than that we don't need a WP:CRYSTAL ball to know this article needs to be created sooner or later. Arguing about it now is an utter and complete waste of time for all concerned. There is an almost infinite number of things which need done on Wikepedia more important than feuding over this article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you don't know what WP:CRYSTAL means. There is no need for this article to exist now and particularly not in the current state it is in because we don't know anything about it other than a time and place, because this is a brand new branding of this event so we have zero idea of what will be different from the BCS championship series. WP:CRYSTAL says we can wait a bit and there is no imperative to produce this article one year in advance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query Please state specifically which points of WP:CRYSTAL you believe are being violated by this article. To me, it seems to clearly pass the requirements. And remember, we know more about it than just the "time and place" as keeps being incorrectly asserted in this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We know nothing of the most important bits which is what two schools will be participating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Asking again so what specific points of WP:CRYSTAL do you believe are being violated?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Speculation must be well documented". And, again, we know nothing about the most important aspect of this which is who will be competing. You can say "we have a date and a venue" but that alone should not be enough to create an article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The speculation of who might play in the game is documented and well sourced. The article is reporting on that speculation and clearly is not original research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, Ryulong, we aren't going to know details and nuances of the game until its played, or until the teams are announced next December, yet many bowl articles are created before the teams are known, especially considering this game is the first of its kind to replace an old system. Not having this article would be a missing piece in coverage of college football, notwithstanding the compelling policy-based arguments supporting keeping the article. Go Phightins! 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is this "we write articles on the event a year before it happens when we have absolutely no idea of what might happen" practice by writers of sports articles is a problem. I see no compelling reason to have this article right now. It can always be recreated further down the line, like when the damn college football season starts, because there's nothing but extreme speculation as to what will be happening one year from now, even if it is sourced speculation. There's nothing wrong with having a redirect until August because there's surely nothing new going to be coming out till then anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're really reaching here. First, you imply a quote of the opposition to your position that the opposition has not made. No one said that, but you quoted anyway. Second, you say that there is nothing but "extreme speculation" (see, that's a quote) and clearly there are many items that those in the news find to be worth reporting in widespread third-party reliable sources that apply specifically to this event. You're claiming victory in the discussion against arguments that haven't even been made. Please be serious and stick to this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not heard of hyperbole? And it's speculation on the most important aspects of this event. It could frankly take place anywhere, at any time, for any particular price, etc., but if we don't know the competitors why do we have an article? It makes no sense to me. That's why I started this discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to exaggerate to prove a point here. Other editors may come along to this discussion and being good little Wikipedians they will assume good faith that your quote is a real one and not hyperbole. That puts undue weight (or at least has the potential for undue weight) for the argument and that's not fair. Some may consider it disruptive to the AFD process, and they'd probably be right. Rest assured, I've been guilty of the same thing in the past and someone pointed out to me much the same way. As to the reason we have the article even when we don't know the competitors is because of the amount of third party independent media coverage on the issue to date providing notability on the topic. Just because it doesn't make sense to any editor does not mean that the topic is not notable and should not be included. There's a lot of stuff in Wikipedia that doesn't make sense to me, either! But that's a personal opinion and is akin to the argumentation in WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is widely considered not a reason to delete an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You really do not think much of other editors. And there's not very much third party independent coverage on this particular game. Three references say the stadium. One is about ticket prices. Two are extreme speculation. Most of the article is empty because no one knows anything worth saying about it. Things can wait until the playoffs begin. This off-season forecasting and article parking does not belong on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIARLIAR Just repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Repeatedly several editors have stated that we only have the "date and venue" or "date and location" for the event. I have noted that we have much more than that. Yet some have continued to say that, in spite of the facts written in this discussion, that we only have a date and a venue. So to make things as plain as I possibly can, I will post a Selected List of known items about the game (not intended to be all-inclusive)

  1. The winner will be declared the champion of the 2014 season
  2. It is the first time a national title game will contested through a playoff system in the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision
  3. It replaces the previous Bowl Championship Series
  4. The location of the game was selected and announced in April 2013
  5. Speculation to its participants have been well documented and include Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Auburn.
  6. Tickets for the event are currently on sale
  7. Ticket prices are between $1,899 to $3,899 apiece.[5]
  8. The participants of the game will be the winners of two semi-final games to be held January 1, 2015.
  9. The semi-finals will be held at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA and the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, LA.
  10. The site of the title game was selected by a bidding process
  11. The game will be broadcast in the US on various ESPN and ESPN affiliates
  12. The game will be broadcast outside the US on ESPN Deportes

All of those items are known facts about the game. Oh, and I forgot two more: we know the date and location too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind most of those items have about as are about as substantial as packing peanuts - lots of volume, no weight, and thrown in just to keep the important things from rattling around in a too-large container. ("Location was chosen in April 2013" - that'd be trivia in any other article.) And of the few bits that are substantive - e.g., "replaces the BCS" - is well-covered in the general article. Even WP:CRYSTAL acknowledges that some very certain events are still too remote and of too little content to warrant an article. 2020 Presidential Election comes to mind - or even for that matter, the 2016 College Football Championship. We know the date, location and time of that one too! JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind declaring which ones in your view are about as substantial as packing peanuts and which ones might be more weighty and worthwhile to be considered? "Most" is not the same as "all" now is it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every single item you list is not substantial to produce an article on this event a year off.
  1. Why does this matter when we don't know who will play for a year?
  2. This can be covered on the new College Football Championship Game page
  3. See previous
  4. Again
  5. That is a wide range of possible competitors in the final game and the 2014 season has not even started yet to make these determinations. FFS, one of the sources used to cite that statement in the article is called "Way-too-early 2014 Top 25".
  6. Doesn't matter
  7. See previous
  8. See point 5
  9. See previous
  10. See point 2
  11. See previous
  12. See previous
You can say all these things about this particular game without dedicating an article to the event. With such a massive paradigm shift in the NCAA football championship we can't be sure about anything particular about this particular event.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet they still pass WP:GNG with significant coverage. So apparently it's important to a lot of people, just not to a couple of editors. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. WP:GNG is, however, a reason to keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "significant coverage". There's a bunch of speculation in the sports community and like 5 concrete details about this event.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of significant coverage. Here is a sample of it that is easily found after a simple google search: Fort Worth Star-Telegram http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/13/5482552/random-drawing-set-for-tickets.html; Lehigh Valley Morning Call http://articles.mcall.com/2014-01-20/sports/mc-college-football-championshp-tickets-0120-20140120_1_sugar-bowl-tickets-college-football-playoff-bcs; KHOU Houston Cowboys Stadium to hosts 2015 title game; Miami Herald As BCS changes to playoff system, Orange Bowl is still top-tier; Tulsa World John Klein: BCS did a lot for Oklahoma, college football (Discusses 2015 game in addition to BCS); Bleacher Report Ticket Cost for CFB Playoff Title Game Isn't About the Price, It's About Value; Tampa Bay Business Journal Tampa watching championship game to learn lessons for 2017; Fort Worth Star-Telegram Cotton Bowl looks ahead to next year’s big stage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't been arguing for "delete" for a while, but rather a redirect to the general championship article, because the article under discussion, that is, the one about the 2015 contest specifically, adds nothing but filler to what we already have in a perfectly good, existing article about the transition away from the BCS, the playoff system, and the location of the first 3 championship games. The 2015 article is, in theory anyhow, about a particular game, and we know so very little about the facts of that particular game that this article is, right now, at best redundant. Even if it can be shoehorned into GNG or CRYSTAL (as can the 2016 and 2017 contests). Honestly, aren't any of the advocates for this article the least bit troubled about (to pick on just one aspect) an "info"box that consists of about 50% blank entries? I'm mystified by the eagerness to ensure the premature existence of a standalone article that, for the time being, offers so little to justify itself. JohnInDC (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to compliment the puckish humor of whoever added, as a reliable, non-speculative source for the article, a Yahoo post entitled Way-too-early 2014 Top 25! JohnInDC (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna lay off the personal attacks?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Paul. I didn't intend it as a personal attack and I hadn't even looked at the edit history to see who did it. It just struck me as kind of amusing that a reference apologizing for itself as being premature was being cited in an article that has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it's premature. I was trying to lighten the mood a bit and apparently misfired. I'll stop. JohnInDC (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted/moving on. Point to follow up: The section states the fact that there is speculation in the sports-writing community that is "way too early" thus showing that the subject is heavily discussed in current third party news publications and therefore meets the standards set in WP:N. The Wikipedia article is not speculating, it is reporting on the fact that there is speculation. Big difference.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)"Policy" is a word we use to describe a practice we've elected to apply without variation or exception, even in cases where the logic of the practice doesn't hold. I don't mean that disparagingly but rather descriptively. Based on all the foregoing, I think it is pretty clear that 1) there's not much to say about the 2015 game that doesn't duplicate what is already said elsewhere, in existing articles on Wikipedia; and 2) almost literally as much could be said about the 2016 and 2017 games. In other words there's not a whole lot of substantive daylight between the 2015 article (which is garnering a lot of 'keeps') and the 2016 and 2017 articles, which would probably get Speedied if someone created them. The difference in treatment can be ascribed, I think, about 85% to "policy". Me personally, I think "keep" doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this case - this championship is a game without contestants, without its own history or traditions (yet), and without anything special to be said about it beyond a few stray facts (current ticket prices) and the musings of some sports columnists. I think that this article is premature, indeed barely less so than articles for the games in the 2 further out years. But that being said, the reason for having a "policy" is so that, rather than engage in endless discussions, you can just point to it and say, "well, it may not make sense but it's the policy".
I can appreciate that reasoning here. I do not believe that, the known date & time notwithstanding, this article warrants standalone treatment yet; but I appreciate that a "one year rule" permits the speedy deletion of articles about actual, notable, certain events that are still a ways off, and at the same time allows retention of others that are equally squishy, but because they are due up within the next 200 or 300, won't remain as debatable clutter for too too long. JohnInDC (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC):[reply]
There is no "one-year rule" per se, it is a project consensus (and one backed up by much reasoning). However, you can scratch that all you want and you're still left with an article that clearly passes WP:GNG and clearly meets all the standards in WP:CRYSTAL. Ample evidence has been provided that the subject passes WP:GNG and ample support has been provided that the subject meets the standards set in WP:CRYSTAL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:42, 26 January 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.
More