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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle at the Meadowlands II[edit]

Miracle at the Meadowlands II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Game fails WP:GNG and is not considered a "classic" or "miracle" game by the Eagles, Giants or NFL community at large. A great ending to an otherwise normal game, yes, a classic worth its own article, nope. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. No significant media coverage beyond routine game coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:SPORTSEVENT. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like fan enthusiasm to me... Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing great and notable about this game. ZappaOMati (talk) 23:27, 19 March 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.