Points of interest related to American football on Wikipedia: History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to American football. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|American football|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to American football.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football/archive

3:16 game

3:16 game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A similarly named page (different capitalization) was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 Game. This article largely duplicates what is already at Tim Tebow. The section 3:16 game § Background is covered at Tim Tebow § "The Tebow Rule" , and 3:16 game § Statistical coincidences is at the game's coverage at Tim Tebow § 2011 season.

The notability guideline WP:NSPORTSEVENT reads:

Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

WP:NOTABILITY states:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

The 3:16 references are more relevant to Tim Tebow than the game, and its details from the game are already covered in his bio, which has the relevant background of his college references to 3:16. For the NFL game itself, other pages this topic overlaps with, aside from Tebow's bio, are 2011–12 NFL playoffs, 2011 Denver Broncos season, and 2011 Pittsburgh Steelers season. —Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This game can be covered at the Tebow article and in the two team-season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. This article is honestly mostly just trivia. If it wasn't for Tebow being a big religious guy this is just something that would be written about once a decade that makes people go "... huh. Neat." Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G4. Delete per nom. No actual notability other than this weird coincidence.🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted, per what I said in the edit summary: "G4 says 'sufficiently identical copies', doubtful since there's [a source] from 2017 here and the afd was 9!! years ago. also, article got a green tick for dyk and is on-hold at GAN." It's better to let the AfD run its course. Skyshiftertalk 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changing my response to reflect that. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as pure trivia, no lasting impact; anything relevant can be inserted into parent articles. Also fails WP:LASTING; all, save a couple, of the sources provided are from 2012, and if we customize our search of newsoutlets to establish when it was last discussed: it hasn't been, since 2020 at least. And they're not even mentions, let alone in-depth discussion. ——Serial Number 54129 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not notable for standalone inclusion. Some content can be merged into parent articles as explained above (though I oppose any redirect of this title). I agree that G4 speedy does not apply. Frank Anchor 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep when reliable sources cover the topic in depth it is a keep. Washington post: "Tim Tebow: Credit John 3:16, John Elway and John Fox" CBS "John 3:16: Tebow stat line evokes biblical verse" Los Angeles Times "John 3:16 message delivered by Tim Tebow's arm" The Denver Post "Focus on the Family unveils John 3:16 ad during Broncos game" Time Magazine "Tim Tebow's 316 Passing Yards Evokes Biblical Number". In addition there is WP:LASTING coverage. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Bible, and Christianity. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Frequently covered in Books. Magazines. Newspapers. Over extended period of time. Additional sources not yet in article:

• Yorkey, Mike (2012). Tim Tebow: Playing with Purpose. Barbour Publisher. p. 61.
• Gordon, Stephen G. (2013). Tim Tebow: Quarterback with Conviction. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 64.
• Sutera, David M. (2013). Sports fans 2.0: how fans are using social media to get closer to the game. Scarecrow Press. p. 30.
• Mackay, Jenny (2013). Tim Tebow. Lucent Books. p. 40.
• Patterson, James (2018). All-American murder: the rise and fall of Aaron Hernandez. Little, Brown and Company. p. 116.

There are more sources, but I don't want to flood the page. The point is, lots of sourcing, and this is how we determine notability. The nom is correct there is some existing coverage elsewhere on WP. That's how it should work, limited coverage in other articles, all pointing to this the main article that has the most depth of detail, that doesn't require the reader to navigate around to piece information together. -- GreenC 19:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're either being intentionally dishonest or simply careless. The first of these sources I happened to check (the third one, sports fans 2.0, p30) makes absolutely no mention of this game. This is entirely about Rollen Stewart (that guy who dressed up in a clown wig with John 3:16 signs at games). I stopped looking after that due to a loss of trust. Is there any particular reason we should take any of your other sources seriously? Do any of them discuss the game in depth? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a hunch, I checked the other sources. Not a SINGLE ONE of these mentions the topic of the article. I strongly suggest you strike your comment as egregiously misleading. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not checked the others properly but on the last one, p.116 mentions the eye black and the start of the following chapter is where the January 8, 2012, game is covered. — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A meaningless statistical coincidence, not a significant or notable game. Since Tebow made a deal about it, it can be mentioned/merged in his own article where there's already a relevant section that includes the background – it's his own broader evokation of 3:16 that has received the coverage. The sources above repeat the same statistics but have a greater focus on Tebow's use of 3:16 in general and do not warrant a standalone article as if this game itself were notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time. Skyshiftertalk 19:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the focus on these sources is more about Tebow's use of 3:16 than this game specifically, and per WP:NOPAGE this can be covered better in the main article. The article has irrelevant details like Roethlisberger's interception, and Hernandez's use of it would be related to Tebow's legacy not that of this game. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We are working through the Talk:3:16 game/GA1. I believe it will look and feel more encyclopedic as the review gets satisfied. It seems to be something that is widely noted in the press.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is ridiculous. Who scored what points and who won the coin toss are totally irrelevant to any of the coverage here. Even more ridiculous that you're doing your own OR and finding more arbitrary coincidences. Nothing about the game itself – which is covered at 2011–12_NFL_playoffs#AFC:_Denver_Broncos_29,_Pittsburgh_Steelers_23_(OT) – is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. There was some attention for the statistical coincidence, but all of the background, significance, legacy is relevant to Tebow himself and his extended use of 3:16, not the game in particular. A topic for "Tim Tebow and 3:16" or "The Tebow Rule" makes more sense to expand on it as whole than to have a page like this, but stripping the impertinent details and duplication leaves just enough to merge. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling. Core reason for deletion ("it's covered elsewhere") is relatively weak in the first place: that's a great reason for an editorial discussion on the talk page, not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met: Incorrect. WP:DEL-REASON No. 5 reads:

  Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

  The Wikipedia:Content forks guideline advises (emphasis added)

  A content fork is a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic.

  This is a fork of the aforementioned sections already at Tim Tebow. —Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain how WP:PROPERSPLIT is failed by this article? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PROPERSPLIT in an informational how-to page. It is not a guideline. An actual guideline is WP:AVOIDSPLIT:

  In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article
  ...
  It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article.

  WP:NSPORTSEVENT says similar:

  For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted.

  90+% of the context is already at Tebow's bio. Anything usesful, aside from the WP:NOTDIARY content, can be merged.—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Has any of the "Keep" voters addressed WP:NOTABILITY? Because this page is mostly just trivia and a weird coincidence, not actually something that's very notable. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment "The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time" is a reference to WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 11:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling." Did you even look at GreenC's? Not a single one of them even mentions the article topic in passing, let alone in depth! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, actually. I did go back and look at GreenC's in depth and your critiques are fair. Lightburst's seem fine, unless I'm missing something there? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is notable because (per the general notability guideline) "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The notability discussion also says, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity ..." Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Some lasting coverage of the game I located:
  • Greatest Broncos games of the 2010s: Steelers at Broncos, 1/8/2012 (2020) – SB Nation
  • Three years later, Demaryius Thomas looks back at Tim Tebow TD vs. Steelers (2015) – The Denver Post ("Jan. 8, 2012. It’s a date that Broncos fans will never forget.")
  • 8 Years Ago: Tim Tebow Delivers Some Mile High Magic In Final Home Broncos Game (2020) – CBS News
  • 10 years ago on January 8, 2012: Broncos' Tim Tebow to Demaryius Thomas in OT (2022) – USA Today
  • 2012 playoff loss in Denver is ancient history to Steelers (2016) – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
  • The Tim Tebow-to-Thomas Touchdown, in the words of Demaryius Thomas (2014) – The Gazette
• BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11's and Lightburst's sources, there is plenty of lasting coverage to meet GNG. And there was more to the game than what would be appropriate to cover in the Tim Tebow article. And there was more to the game than simply the 3:16 coincidences. For example, as mentioned in at least one of BeanieFan11's sources (but not I believe in the article as it stands now), it was the first overtime playoff game played under the new rules under which the game would not end in sudden death on a field goal on the first possession. Rlendog (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the sources given in the article and in this discussion show enduring notability of the game. — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of starting quarterbacks in the XFL

Lists of starting quarterbacks in the XFL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this is not a grouping discussed in secondary sources. I found some lists of the quarterbacks in the league, but not specifically for starting quarterbacks. Let'srun (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, American football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a courtesy ping to @BeanieFan11, who removed the initial PROD. Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: I found some lists of the quarterbacks in the league, but not specifically for starting quarterbacks. Care to share the lists you found? If there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability for a list of XFL quarterbacks, but not specifically the starting quarterbacks, then perhaps this could be a "keep and move" situation to something like List of XFL quarterbacks. Left guide (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the same one you did. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that, within the context of other articles about the league, that there is substantial information about starting quarterbacks' roles. Going back to 2020, there was a lot of reporting on starting QB salary being higher than other position players, which in and of itself establishes notability. I'll add that one to the article and others. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: From what I can see, none of the sources in the current version of the article count towards the notability of the article topic, since they appear to discuss NFL quarterbacks (and to a lesser extent quarterbacks as a general concept), so the sources are supporting the article in a synthetic manner and the actual list is unsourced original research, but I found this source that specifically addresses XFL quarterbacks. Left guide (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough specific coverage of starting quarterbacks at any point in time to justify a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:Otherstuffexists as there's an article for Lists of starting quarterbacks in the USFL, List of starting quarterbacks in the National Football League and List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll note that the USFL article features nearly identical text to the one currently being discussed and is at substantial risk of a similar deletion nomination should the original nominee so choose. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Other stuff exists is also part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it isn't a reason to keep this one. If anything, it's a reason to consider deleting some of those too (though NFL Superbowl starting QBs do get a lot of coverage, unlike QBs in this league). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By pointing out WP:OSE (which I will continue to do), I am not suggesting keep or delete. I am merely pointing it out for possible merge. Ignoring the existence of other articles seems irrational to me. We should be aware of everything relevant in the main space. Whether you want to merge, keep or delete is up to you. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently structured due to complete lack of sourcing, ergo no establishment of notability and possible listcruft. In theory, going through individual quarterbacks' articles alone, there is enough material and sourcing to justify a list article—but I would prefer, given the structure of the UFL, that if such sourcing is established, that it be merged into its USFL counterpart, given that it is a historical list (see also: Timeline of the XFL and USFL) and that now-defunct teams be included as Former USFL and XFL teams in a separate section. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I have made some revisions to the article to make the lede more relevant to the XFL in particular in hopes of establishing notability and withdraw my vote to delete. My suggestion to merge remains. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL. Cards84664 01:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If we don't have sources for this group, it should not exist as a standalone list, nor should should it be merged elsewhere.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added to establish notability so that issue has been addressed. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I see sources for some individual entries, but nothing treating the list topic as a group. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles discussing within the context of being a starting quarterback in the XFL/UFL. Individual articles discussing the relevance and importance of the position (especially in regard to salary). That crosses into GNG territory and no longer qualifies the topic for deletion.

If one must rise to the order of picking nits over subject focus of sources, it likely does not rise to the level where deletion would be warranted. That said, restructuring of the artlcle if/when the merger is proposed, I would like to see it trimmed to a comparable standard as the NFL starting quarterback in that the current/most recent example is the only one that needs to be listed, as there likely is nowhere near enough sourcing—at least anything rising beyond ROUTINE coverage—to warrant such listcruft. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is an article on the starting QB position in the XFL, not a list of them. To qualify for NLIST, that topic must have GNG coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: There are these two sources treating XFL quarterbacks as a group, (one of which is referenced in this article) but I don't know if it's enough to establish notability. At a minimum, it should qualify for a merge though. Left guide (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those is about XFL starting QBs as a position, not a list of individual QBs; in fact it only mentions one player. The second is not an independent source as ESPN has a broadcast contract with the XFL and therefore has a strong financial incentive to cover the league. The article is also not on starting QBs, so its coverage is irrelevant anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion seems to be ongoing between those editors arguing for Delete and those advocating a Merge. I'll just add that I assume the proposed Merge target article is Lists of starting quarterbacks in the USFL as there is no article at Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The XFL and USFL themselves are merging into a new UFL league, hence the intended merge target. Cards84664 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new merge target has to be created first, regardless of the fact that the leagues have merged. I still oppose a merge since I don't see the sourcing needed to support it. Let'srun (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cards84664, I didn't say that the subject didn't exist, just that the article didn't exist. We can't merge this article into a nonexistent page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes, UFL because USFL and XFL are merging next season (see United Football League (2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

• None

Files proposed for deletion

• None

Templates for deletion

• None

Categories

• None