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 selective merge to multiple targets. There is clear consensus here that the article, as currently framed, is a violation of WP:NOR; the "keep" votes assert usefulness without rebutting the concern about selection criteria. There are convincing arguments that there is useful material on this page that could be merged elsewhere, but there is no consensus on a merge target, and reasonable arguments have been presented for multiple targets. As such I'm seeing consensus for a selective merger, but also consensus that this shouldn't continue to exist in its present form. So I'm going to redirect this to the most obvious general target, which is History_of_American_football#Intercollegiate_football_(1869–present), but this is only to preserve the history and allow interested editors to perform mergers as needed; the redirect can be retargeted as needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically significant Michigan Wolverines football games. Initially, I was inclined to suggest that the list be massively pared down, but the concept of "historically significant" is way too subjective and invites anyone with a particular passion to add games they believe to be important and interesting. For example, the list includes 14 different "first in the South" entries, e.g., first soccer-style college football game in the South (1873), first rugby-style football game in the South (1880), first football game in "the Deep South" (1889), the game that "signalled football's arrival in the South" (1890), the "South's first great intersectional triumph" (1905), "the South's first triumph" against one of the Big Four (1910), Alabama's first victory over an Eastern power (1922), "the game that changed the south" (1926), first African-American to play against a white team in the south (1947), first African-American to play in the "Deep South" (1956), first African-American to play in one of the "big" Southern conferences (1963), first African-American to play in the SEC (1967), first inter-racial game in the South (1969), first fully integrated team to play in the South (1970), etc. Trying to pare this down and then policing it to what is truly "historically significant" is next to impossible. Moreover, the process of paring it down inevitably delves deeply into original research and subjectivity. According, nuking it is the best outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is an article I originally created or at least was invovled in way back when. I think it's good to have such a list on some level to help with navigation, general research, etc. But Cbl62 is correct--what does "historically significant" mean? I used to think I knew... but now I'm convinced that I do not. In this list, there have been many attempts to put "fan favorites" in to pose as "historically significant" games that general consensus show really are not. It's my hope that this discussion can turn up a better criteria, title, or some other specific measure for inclusion in a list like this because of its usefulness. I'll put some suggestons on this talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm not going to take a position on this one. I'm not neutral, keep, nor delete. Nor rename... I'm really in the place of being unsure what to do here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does this list of "historically significant" games differ from the full list of individual games at Category:College football games? Can the article title be changed to something like "List of notable college football games" and include all games that have their own articles? MOS:TIMELINE or Wikipedia:Timeline would seem to allow this. If most of the individual games category are already included in the list, the only difficulty I see would be in finding a way to include or exclude most (all?) Bowl Games, all of which have their own article and would quickly overwhelm the list of individual regular season games. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list includes many games that do not have articles. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 103 games on this list. There are approximately 190 categories in the Category:College football games. A sampling of several suggests each category has between 5 and 10 games listed. So yes, this list differs substantially. Further, a game having its own page does not make it significant, and at least some games with tremendous significance do not have a page. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something like "List of individual college football games" or "List of notable college football games" or "Timeline of..." or similar. Per MOS:TIMELINE and Wikipedia:Timeline. Delete any games without their own articles to remove the OR present in current list. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it to a list of “notable” or “individual” games with articles would mean that literally hundreds of playoff, rose, orange, sugar, cotton and tangerine bowls etc would qualify and the list would become enormous. Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for my Keep (games with own articles) & Rename being WP:CSC says: "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria: 1. Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia."PK-WIKI (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Historically significant" is a woefully vague criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete nor rename As a student of early American football (before 1920), I know that many of the games listed are of great importance in the evolution of American football. The first game, Harvard-McGill, Yale-Eton, the Concessionary game, the Block game, etc. Games stating “first in the (region)” demonstrate the spread of football throughout the country from its northeast origins, and also the transfer of influence from the northeast to other regions. Entries containing superlatives such as “arrival of the south” are from documented sources and again demonstrate how the other regions gradually came to supersede the northeast in football prominence. The African-American entries demonstrate the progress of integration in football, mirroring that of American society. Later games are not as influential as the oldest ones, but nonetheless might be considered significant. While I agree that some entries are merely interesting or represent fandom, to rename the list as “Notable College Football Games” would only invite more of the same. As I mentioned, my knowledge is in the early days of football; I am much less informed moving forward. The list has informed me of many important games from later times, and no doubt has done the same for others. To delete the page would be a disservice to those interested in college football history. I do not have an answer to the problem of entries that are merely interesting and not actually historically significant; perhaps one criterion would be to require a documented, published source providing that information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.167.46 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better criterion would be one or more sources that describe the development of the game and thus list the historically significant games. This would then demonstrate treatment of the subject as a group or set, both defining the list inclusion parameters and satisfying WP:LISTN. As you say you are a student of the early game, can you point to any such treatments? You can just link to books with hyperlinks if you like, by enclosing them in single square brackets. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there aren't any. I do not know of a single comprehensive, objective history of college football. The best is probably "The History of American Football: Its Great Teams, Players and Coaches" by Allison Danzig - but that was published in 1956. College football histories since then have all been of the coffee table variety, concentrate on particular teams for the sake of fans, or are about particular subjects, such as the influence of television or various academic and recruiting scandals. There is also a big difference between what might be considered historically significant in the 19th century and today. The particular games I mentioned all radically changed the way American football is played. No game today could possibly do that. But in a relative sense, modern games can still be considered significant - first playoff game, first female player, etc. Some of the other listed recent games are dubious, which leads me to another point. There is a much higher concentration of games listed from the past ten or twenty years than previously, no doubt reflecting the memories of the posters and not an actual objective consideration of the significance of those games. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is that lack of treatment that makes it hard to argue for significance here. But what of Danzig (1956)? Does that at least describe or list all the games that led to the modern development? It may be an old source, but that might still be a good steer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several entries, realizing that the most critically important historical games that defined American football were not included. Danzig is the primary source. Other early significant games can be documented by Danzig, Melvin Smith, and another important early work, Football, The American Intercollegiate Game by Parke Davis, 1911. Most of the other early games listed appear valid and are documented, though I have not checked the sources. Yes, Danzig (oversized, small font, 525 pp) could be a source for later games, but I have not studied beyond 1920. For games beyond that, as I mentioned previously, the magnitude of the importance of individual games is much less than the pioneer games. Instead, they represent important concepts in the development of college football. The result of the first BSC playoff game is not that important, but it represents the beginning of Division IA playoffs, which is important. Other such games, such as the end of winning or losing streaks, the last college tie and first college overtime game, and team scoring records, I can accept as being historically significant in a modern sense. Stuff like individual records and ridiculously long overtime games (and the absurd scores created by them) are mere trivia, not significant, and should not be included. The one about the Spanish-only broadcast is a milestone in television, not in football. That Katie Hnida played in a Division IA game is historically significant; the next entry stating she scored in a game not nearly as much. The famous "The Play" game between Stanford and California is memorable, not for the game itself but for its last play. But does that make it historically significant? Maybe, because so many people who are not normally sports fans knew about it and still remember it. But that it kept John Elway out of a bowl game is mere fan griping (or bragging). I'm tempted to edit some of these latter entries, but not being well informed on recent history, I am reluctant to do so. That being said, some of the late entries are clearly fan postings and are not even coherently written. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also closely follow the early history of American football, but love off the game is not a reason to ignore the massive WP:OR and WP:LISTN issues with this list. For those interested in learning about the early history of the game, there are far more effective and contextualized ways of communicating that history. See, e.g., Early history of American football (sport-wide treatment) or History of Michigan Wolverines football in the early years (team specific). I continue to believe that the list under discussion should be deleted, though I am open to merging any important parts not already covered into Early history of American football. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't know what the WP:OR and WP:LISTN issues even are. But I argue not out of a love for the game, but for the scholarly value of the article. I disagree that integrating these games into other articles is more effective. It may be less so. Comprehensive articles focus on larger trends and a wider scope, and it can be incongruent to insert details of particular games within that context. A timeline history of important games such as this provides a different manner of interpreting college football history, and thus has its own value. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:OR issue is at the very core of the list, i.e., the process of deciding which games are "historically significant" consists of "original research". The LISTN issues include whether "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (as per your own comment below that "there aren't multiple sources, or even any sources" supporting the selection of historically significant games). Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You take my quote out of context. I said I know of no published academic histories on college football concerning important games of the past 50 years, and not involving such esoteric topics as recruiting scandals. But there is such discussion on the web. While I would not accept the validity of a fan blog, blogs by established authors with established companies may be of value.
I disagree that labelling games as historically significant is a matter of original research if they are backed up by verifiable sources. The criteria defined in the article are good ones: a game must boast notable historical "firsts" (e.g., the first game) or have had a substantial influence on the sport (e.g. the conversion from soccer to rugby). This influence might stem from significant rule alterations (e.g. the block games) or the introduction of enduring traditions (e.g. homecoming). Historically significant games should hold a prominent place in comprehensive historical narratives of college football (they do, at least as far as the publication of Danzig). Games that might be significant exclusively to the fan base of a specific team should be excluded from this list. (agree)
I agree that policing is a difficulty, but I think there are more of us concerned with the quality of the article than there are overzealous fans wanting to promote their favorite team.
I did attempt to improve the quality of the article by the strategies you suggest in your first entry, but some pedant somewhere running Huggle rolled them back, accusing me of vandalism, I suppose. He probably never even looked at the content. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I did restore your edits. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you for that. I wasn't going to restore myself. I know the individual who did the rollbacks is a Wikipedia superuser of some sort, and that his efforts were in good faith, but I object to his comprehensive rollbacks without direct consideration of the material. I did send him a polite note asking him to justify his actions; he never replied. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on my previous comment, a quote from Michael Oriard, Reading Football: How the Popular Press Created an American Spectacle: "The best succinct account of the rise of collegiate football can be found in Davis's book, and among recent histories, in Smith, Sports and Freedom, chaps. 6 and 7. It is a remarkable fact that the only full-scale histories of intercollegiate football (emphasis mine) remain the anecdotal one published in 1956 by sportswriter Allison Danzig, History of American Football, and a more recent year-by-year journal, Tom Perrin's Football." Oriard is a former NFL player turned scholar and college professor. I disagree with his characterization of Danzig as "anecdotal". Danzig's work, more than 500 pages, has two segments of roughly equal length - a topical discussion of the development of college football, and year-by-year highlights. He does has voluminous quotes from contemporary observers such as Walter Camp and Knute Rockne, which, I suppose, is where the anecdotal assessment comes from. I am familiar with the works by Smith and Perrin; neither comes close to the in-depth discussions by Davis and Danzig. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't come up with a guideline-based reason to keep this, but not sure deleting all of this really improves Wikipedia that much. Maybe we could limit it to games that multiple sources say are historically significant. That wouldn't be that much different than List of films considered the best. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't multiple sources, or even any sources, for games from the past 50 years or so. See my above post for a discussion about a lack of scholarly publication on college football history. For those games, it is more a matter of applying reason. First division IA playoff game? Sure. First game played in Asia? Nah. Many of these entries have no citation, or have citations that do not support the conclusion. Example, the entry on the 1987 Fiesta Bowl, badly written, does not state the significance of the game, nor does the article is cites. I know, though - it decided the national championship outside of the traditional power bowl games that were reserved for conference champions. Thus, it was the first step in removing the bowl system in favor of a playoff system. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of objective criteria for what makes a game "historically significant." Important games have their own article already and are grouped together in Template:Historic college football gamesFrankAnchor 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That template doesn't appear to have any criteria either. Its header is linked to this list. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the template can be easily retitled as “college football games” or the like and the article could easily be unlinked when deleted. The template is fine, the template AND the article are redundant. FrankAnchor 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe we could just rename this List of notable college football games...? or something. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we're going to keep a template for navigation / grouping at Template:Historic college football games then we should instead just make it a list/timeline article at List of notable college football games (or similar). Delete the template instead once that's done. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all important games have their own pages. The critically important games of Yale-Eton, the Concessionary Game, and the Block games, for instance, all hugely important games in the development of American football, do not have pages. They did not even appear on this list until I put them there yesterday. The criteria specified in the second paragraph of the article are good ones, and clearly some of the entries violate those criteria. For example, three entries regarding firsts in the south involve Vanderbilt. Two of those use the same source and the familiar "Vandy" substituting for Vanderbilt. Clearly, those are fan entries and should be deleted. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In an attempt to improve the quality and relevance of this page (and hopefully save it from deletion), I made several edits and deleted some entries. Someone not otherwise involved with this discussion reverted and negated my work with a few mouse clicks, claiming my edits appear to not be constructive. I will waste my time no further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something, but not delete. I think this has the potential to be a very valuable article and don't think deleting is a good idea - I'm certain there's coverage of important college football games, e.g. I was quickly able to find Sporting News: Top 10 most impactful games in college football history - the issue is that we need to better define what counts as "historically significant". BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: draftify perhaps? That's what immediately came to mind upon reading "something, but not delete". Left guide (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small majority of editors advocating Deletion but some editors who are strongly objecting to that option. I'm hoping a few more days can solidify a consensus or editors can come up with an ATD. I think I can safely say that however this discussion closes, it's unlikely that this article will stay as it is now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Cbl62 and others. The lack of a well-defined set criterion that is also supported by coverage in IRS sources means LISTN is not met, and this article's purpose does not extend to navigation, so deletion seems the correct option.
What about the Sporting News source I listed above regarding the most impactful historical college football games? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, It must be remembered that the Sporting News article was written by a professional journalist required to produce content on a deadline, and that the nature of his and other such blogs is entertainment, not scholarly research. Note that neither this list nor another included elsewhere on this page include discussions of the Block games, the Yale-Eton game, or the Concessionary game, matches which had overwhelming and immediate influence on the development of the distinctly American football game and that are discussed in both Davis and Danzig. The author of the Sporting News blog has probably never even heard of them. His assertion that the 1982 championship game is the most influential in college football history is absurd. Nonetheless, articles of this sort, when written by a professional for an established publication such as Sporting News, still have value in that they bring attention to modern games that are significant, even if not nearly as important as those formative early games. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This reeks of WP:OR, with no criteria as for what makes a game historically significant. Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Bleacher Report is MEDREL, dependent on the contributor. The author in this case is a freelancer with BA in creative writing who mostly does entertainment news for the Daily Mail, so I don't think that list is really reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: The IP cites some book sources which sound decent; what about those and the Sporting News article (I'm also not sure what "MEDREL" means?)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medium reliable; with the bad refs script it shows up yellow with hover-over text stating "reliability depends on contributor or topic". I guess draftifying to projectspace could work, as long as criteria were a lot better defined (i.e. games are included if they're in multiple lists/discussions of the most historic college football games overall, rather than "most historic" only among some subcategorization (e.g. "most historic USC games")). JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it has a good deal of potential, but needs a good deal of work to be made viable. Would there be any support among delete voters, @JoelleJay, SpacedFarmer, Let'srun, Left guide, PK-WIKI, WikiOriginal-9, Frank Anchor, Paulmcdonald, Cbl62, Clarityfiend, Ltbdl, and Sirfurboy:, for a move to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/List of historically significant college football games, where it could maybe be worked on further, better defined, etc., and eventually returned? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I am not a delete voter. I have not !voted at all, and this is because I am very undecided. The IP presented some useful information and sources, but they don't seem to speak to notability of the set as is, nor perhaps any set. I would think a more viable WP:ATD might be to consider merge to Early history of American football, which Cbl62 said they would be open to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be open to a merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this approach. My biggest issue is what objective factors would make a game historically significant. FrankAnchor 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vote to delete. I think a timeline listing of individual games with articles is valuable + notable, article should be kept, edited, and maybe renamed. It definitely should be moved into the Wikiproject space rather than deleted. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan, that is exactly what I have been trying to do, but most of my edits get rolled back, some no sooner than I make them. I could make many more, but there is no point in continuing. I tried to address my reasoning in my comments, but to no avail. I am, however, going to respond to some of the criticisms of my entries made by Cbl62. I have attempted some of the cleaning up suggested by him (her?) in his first post, only to have my work deleted. Melvin Smith's work should not be dismissed for being self-published. What publisher would publish a 700-page listing of 19th century football scores? Smith is a respected, published (not just by himself) college football historian. He was one of the founders of, and contributors to, the influential College Football Data Warehouse and a member of, and contributor to, the College Football Researchers Association. He spent decades travelling the country visiting research libraries to uncover the results of thousands of previously unknown and forgotten football games. I have personally corresponded with him. In one published article, he discusses how he was thrown out of the library at Princeton Theological Seminary when it was discovered he was there to research football games. Is it Cbl62's assertion that Smith merely made all his research up? To what end? True, there is no collaborating documentation, because no one else has ever done the research, and because of its esoteric nature, probably no one ever will. That doesn't mean his work is false, and I know of no source that refutes Smith or says he is a fraud. First games - if the College of New Jersey vs. Princeton Theological Seminary games are not significant as the true first intercollegiate football games, then why is 1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers? (The College of New Jersey did not change its name to Princeton College until the 1890s.) Cbl62's objection to me stating that New Jersey/Rutgers is conventionally considered to be the first intercollegiate game - to what point does conventional knowledge need to be cited? Any source, anywhere, will tell you that very thing. The few references you can find to the pre-1969 games will say they were only considered practice or exhibition games, and thus do not count, though there is no evidence of such. No games at the time were considered "official" or involved scheduling by the Athletics department or the Athletic Director (neither of which existed), nor did they have any sanction from the colleges in question regarding actually representing the university. They were, instead, scheduled by communication between team captains. Yale's first game is significant because of the overwhelming importance of Yale and Walter Camp in the development of American football. But I did not make this superlative up - Parke Davis states that very thing in the work I cited. Not my entry, but the Washington & Lee vs. VMI game as the first in the south is documented elsewhere, not just by the W&L website. There may have been earlier games in the south, but this is the first known. I could go on, but what's the point? In his zeal to have this page deleted, Cbl62 will continue to delete any entries made by me, even though my entries are an attempt to improve and save the page and are a follow-up to his own suggestions. I have to wonder why he continues to edit a site that he wants to kill. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you have been trying to improve it - and I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the reversions of your edits - but I think it would all better be discussed on the article talk page on whether to consider Smith reliable, what games to include, etc. That's why I suggest moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/List of historically significant college football games, where there are no time restraints - that way we can organize everything and work out exactly how this list will be done. I hope you will continue to try to work with us on this - I'm actually quite interested at the potential pre-1869 football games. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:149.76.167.46 Wikipedia must be based on "WP:RELIABLE" published sources. Per Wikipedia policy, self-published works such as the Smith work are not considered reliable. See WP:RSSELF. If the earlier games you mentioned were truly "college football" and truly historic, surely they would have been discussed in some depth in reliable sources in the 170 years since they were played. To the contrary, the 1869 Princeton vs. Rutgers football game has long been recognized in dozens of reliable sources as the first college football game. If you want to rewrite the history books and refute what all of these reliable sources say, that is an exceptional claim that requires highly reliable sourcing. See Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ("Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."). The IP editor's efforts to add games unsupported by reliable sources convinces me now more than ever that this list is an invitation to "original research" and needs to be deleted (or, at the very least, moved out of main space and into project space). Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cbl62, just a note that you should unbold deleted there, although you could italicise it. Bolded text is treated as a !vote in a deletion discussion and you have already registered your delete !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not simply include the games that have their own article and dispose the rest? The first bullet point under WP:CSC is a common easy-to-follow brightline criteria, and WP:NEVENT notability guidelines are a convenient built-in arbiter of what makes a game historically significant for our purposes as evidenced by the second paragraph of the WP:EFFECT clause, which begins with: Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable.Left guide (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm sorry to prolong this discussion but I see a suggestion to Merge without a target article mentioned. There is a proposed rename/move of this article to Project space but not a clear consensus to do this action. But given the strong opinions here, I don't think a "No consensus" closure is suitable. So, perhaps those editors who believe this content should be retained in some form could get on the same page with an ATD that could be implemented. Or another closer might come along who will take more decisive action than me. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Early history of American football. I can't, in all honesty, say that I think this article should be kept. The problem (as has been noted) is that the framing is not sufficiently tight, and the definition of "historically significant" is not backed by any good sourcing per WP:LISTN that treats these as a group. But there is good information on the page that mentions some games that were undoubtedly historically significant as the game developed, and like many forms of football around the world, college and school football is where development happened. That is good detail, and an IP editor provided some sources that support the notability of that subset of this page. The problem then lies in how it is presented to the reader. Another editor with expertise in this area pointed out the Early History page, and suggested they would support a merge there, despite their delete !vote. Looking at that page, it is far fuller than this, and anyone wanting to understand the development of the early game will find more suitable material there. However, I also note that this page has mergeable content not found on that page. For instance, this page mentions the 1873 Yale game, after which, apparently, Yale lobbied for 11 man teams. This does not seem to get a mention on the target page. So that page could be improved by information here. Moreover, editors there might decide to tabulate the specific games mentioned there, as they are tabulated here. These are content decisions for that page, but ultimately that page will be improved by a merge from here. I note that arguments have been made for refactoring this list and keeping it under a different title. My suggestion is that we merge first. If we then find that there is a reason to split out a table of games that are shown to be a notable collection per LISTN, then this merge is without prejudice against forming a new list page under an appropriate title in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with that merge target since it would only cover the games until 1932. There is valuable information about several notable and well-sourced games that would be lost in such a merge by simple virtue of not being part of the "early history". I might be willing to support if it also included Modern history of American football as a merge target. If only one page can be chosen, then it should be History of American football#Intercollegiate football (1869–present). Left guide (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LSC. We have similar lists to this one that are accepted on Wikipedia, see List of best video games; however those articles are have very strict criteria which this one doesn't. Swordman97talk to me 19:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The more I looked into this, I realized the following: some of the information is already on other Wikipedia articles (for example, 1884 Dartmouth vs. Yale and 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech is mentioned on List of 100-point games in college football, the 1941 Oklahoma City vs. Youngstown football game]] aka the first penalty flag is on American football rules see also section, and 2023 Juniata vs. Shenandoah football game, the first woman ever to play a non-kicking position, is on List of female American football players); some of the material should be on other Wikipedia articles (not one merge in particular) but nobody has added it yet (consider adding some to College football on television, College football on radio, and Racism in sport#College football); a few do not fit on any particular Wikipedia articles. The list is so extensive, finding places to put most of these important events on short notice (without others' help) is not feasible. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. Reaffirming my vote to delete. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (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.