- 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. MBisanz talk 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game that was just one of many in 2005. There was nothing special about this game, and it received only WP:ROUTINE coverage. The game holds little to no historical significance; as such has not been discussed at all by reliable sources in recent years. Lizard ( talk) 02:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia should never have become about articles like this. The thousands and thousands of DI games in history should not be considered notable just because many of them have been played in an age where coverage is abundant.
MLA (
talk)
09:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete, which is essentially the argument that although there is plenty of coverage we still shouldn't keep the article because Wikipedia shouldn't be about this particular subject.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep like it or not, the game received a significant amount of coverage, far beyond the "routine" coverage of box scores and listings. See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for further commentary. Clearly passes general notability guideline for significant coverage in third party articles. In 2007, the article was considered notable for a game two years earlier. Notability is not temporary.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Has had lasting coverage, and a significant amount. Notability is not temporary, as pointed out above, nor is WP:IDONTLIKEIT a reason for deletion. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ Smartyllama: Can you point out a few examples of the "lasting coverage", i.e., significant coverage of this game outside the game's immediate aftermath? Cbl62 ( talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete (or merge any useful content into 2005 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas A&M). In an annual rivalry game, the #2 team in the country defeated an unranked team by a 40–29 score. Texas' 2005 national championship season is highly notable and has a stand-alone article that includes detailed treatment of each game, including this one. As a matter of sound editorial judgment, I do not believe it is prudent to allow stand-alone articles for individual games unless there is something truly extraordinary about them. There is nothing extraordinary about this game. Sure, the game received abundant coverage, but that is true of every game Texas played that year and every game that any national championship team plays. But games such as this one can and should be adequately covered in the team's season article, not in stand-alone articles for each game. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- The more I look at it, the clearer it becomes that this article does not warrant a stand-alone article. The "Analysis" section of the article notes that the game was Texas' "poorest performance of the season ... both offensively and defensively," and then details the poor performances given by various players and units. It strike me as fundamentally misguided to allow a stand-alone article about a game where the only supposedly "extraordinary" thing about it is that the performances were poor in comparison to the rest of the season.
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Further note: The game at issue, according to
List of Texas Longhorns football games, is not even regarded as one of the great games in Texas football history. Indeed, it is not even rated as one of Texas' greatest games of the 2005 season -- the linked article lists three 2005 Texas games as being among the great games, but notably does not include this one. Moreover, I've yet to see any evidence that this game has been the subject of enduring, significant coverage after the immediate aftermath of the game. If this game, involving a poor performance by a good team, meets the standard for a stand-alone article, then "Katy bar the door," 'cause people will feel free to create game articles for just about any game played by a major program.
Cbl62 (
talk)
22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- If we put it on that list, would that make a difference?--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, putting it on the list, belatedly and while the AfD is pending, wouldn't make a difference. ;)
Cbl62 (
talk)
05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why would failing to put it on the list before make any difference? Wikipedia is far from complete, and perhaps that article is incomplete. Failure of this article to not be mentioned in that article is not a reason to delete this article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Paulmcdonald: The exclusion from the Texas games list is merely one piece of circumstantial evidence. The more central point is that there is a long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season (see
2005 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas A&M) and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance (e.g.,
1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game). You were the one who created
List of historically significant college football games -- do you honestly believe the game at issue here belongs on such a list of historically significant games? My bottom line: There is nothing historic or extraordinary about this game to warrant a departure from the general practice. Further, as noted above, noboby has presented evidence that this game received enduring coverage (i.e., significant coverage beyond news reports in the game's immediate wake).
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Good arguments and sound reasoning. Where I disagree is that I do not believe that "historic or extraordinary" are the proper measures of notability. The proper measure, in my view, is best expressed in WP:GNG and WP:N. There we find that topics are presumed acceptable for inclusion if they pass the general notability guideline and do not violate any given policy. Measures such as "historic" or "extraordinary" lead to personal interpretation instead of a specific measure. And that's why I find this article and others like it to be notable and worthy of inclusion--because this article and its "cousins" meet the specific measure.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- For me, it's not a question of notability, as most
Power Five games get enough significant, non-
WP:ROUTINE coverage to pass
WP:GNG. It's an issue of editorial judgment in how we present content about individual games, and I think team season articles are the best format, with an exception for the truly exceptional game that requires a more in depth analysis.
Cbl62 (
talk)
17:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's sound reasoning. The issue I see is that what usually happens is the game article is deleted and the season article is either never created or the game information is never added. In other words, I find that many times that "merge" is the decision but "delete" is the result. Another problem is that by using season articles for games, we now have double-entry for each game--one for the season article for the home team, and one more for the season article for the visitor team. That makes maintenance more difficult and warrants separate articles.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @
Paulmcdonald: The exclusion from the Texas games list is merely one piece of circumstantial evidence. The more central point is that there is a long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season (see
2005 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas A&M) and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance (e.g.,
1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game). You were the one who created
List of historically significant college football games -- do you honestly believe the game at issue here belongs on such a list of historically significant games? My bottom line: There is nothing historic or extraordinary about this game to warrant a departure from the general practice. Further, as noted above, noboby has presented evidence that this game received enduring coverage (i.e., significant coverage beyond news reports in the game's immediate wake).
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why would failing to put it on the list before make any difference? Wikipedia is far from complete, and perhaps that article is incomplete. Failure of this article to not be mentioned in that article is not a reason to delete this article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, putting it on the list, belatedly and while the AfD is pending, wouldn't make a difference. ;)
Cbl62 (
talk)
05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- If we put it on that list, would that make a difference?--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Further note: The game at issue, according to
List of Texas Longhorns football games, is not even regarded as one of the great games in Texas football history. Indeed, it is not even rated as one of Texas' greatest games of the 2005 season -- the linked article lists three 2005 Texas games as being among the great games, but notably does not include this one. Moreover, I've yet to see any evidence that this game has been the subject of enduring, significant coverage after the immediate aftermath of the game. If this game, involving a poor performance by a good team, meets the standard for a stand-alone article, then "Katy bar the door," 'cause people will feel free to create game articles for just about any game played by a major program.
Cbl62 (
talk)
22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- The more I look at it, the clearer it becomes that this article does not warrant a stand-alone article. The "Analysis" section of the article notes that the game was Texas' "poorest performance of the season ... both offensively and defensively," and then details the poor performances given by various players and units. It strike me as fundamentally misguided to allow a stand-alone article about a game where the only supposedly "extraordinary" thing about it is that the performances were poor in comparison to the rest of the season.
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete/merge per Cb162. It is true that any game Texas played would have received massive coverage. We should indeed limit such as articles as these to those games that were truly significant. That being said, I'd be open to reconsidering my position if someone could provide evidence for the above claim of lasting coverage. Lepricavark ( talk) 16:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The game already has a couple of paragraphs in the Longhorns season article. Also consider deleting 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game and 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game. Just because two traditional powers clash doesn't mean the game itself deserves a monument. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Regular season NCAA football games are generally not notable. No records were set; nothing else seems more notable than other games. Fbdave ( talk) 02:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. As further support for the established practice of discouraging stand-alone articles on regular season football games, see Dirtlawyer1 and others' discussion of WP:SPORTSEVENT and related policies at the following similar AfDs (all closed as delete): (1) 1996 UCLA vs. Tennessee; (2) 2011 Michigan vs Notre Dame; (3)-(9) 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games; (10)-(13) 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 Cowboys Classic; (14) 2008 Oregon vs. Oregon State; (15) 2007 Missouri vs. Kansas; (16) 2001 Tennessee vs. Florida; (17) 2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M; (18) 1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State; (19) 2006 USC vs. UCLA; (20) 2015 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech; (21) 2007 Pitt vs. West Virginia; (22)-(23) 2013 and 2014 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff, and (24) 2006 Texas vs. Ohio State. See also Harbaugh Bowl discussing the same principles in an NFL context. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nothing to make this particular game stand out as notable. Onel5969 TT me 18:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game that was just one of many in 2005. There was nothing special about this game, and it received only WP:ROUTINE coverage. The game holds little to no historical significance; as such has not been discussed at all by reliable sources in recent years. Lizard ( talk) 02:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jweiss11 ( talk) 05:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia should never have become about articles like this. The thousands and thousands of DI games in history should not be considered notable just because many of them have been played in an age where coverage is abundant.
MLA (
talk)
09:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete, which is essentially the argument that although there is plenty of coverage we still shouldn't keep the article because Wikipedia shouldn't be about this particular subject.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep like it or not, the game received a significant amount of coverage, far beyond the "routine" coverage of box scores and listings. See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for further commentary. Clearly passes general notability guideline for significant coverage in third party articles. In 2007, the article was considered notable for a game two years earlier. Notability is not temporary.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Has had lasting coverage, and a significant amount. Notability is not temporary, as pointed out above, nor is WP:IDONTLIKEIT a reason for deletion. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ Smartyllama: Can you point out a few examples of the "lasting coverage", i.e., significant coverage of this game outside the game's immediate aftermath? Cbl62 ( talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete (or merge any useful content into 2005 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas A&M). In an annual rivalry game, the #2 team in the country defeated an unranked team by a 40–29 score. Texas' 2005 national championship season is highly notable and has a stand-alone article that includes detailed treatment of each game, including this one. As a matter of sound editorial judgment, I do not believe it is prudent to allow stand-alone articles for individual games unless there is something truly extraordinary about them. There is nothing extraordinary about this game. Sure, the game received abundant coverage, but that is true of every game Texas played that year and every game that any national championship team plays. But games such as this one can and should be adequately covered in the team's season article, not in stand-alone articles for each game. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- The more I look at it, the clearer it becomes that this article does not warrant a stand-alone article. The "Analysis" section of the article notes that the game was Texas' "poorest performance of the season ... both offensively and defensively," and then details the poor performances given by various players and units. It strike me as fundamentally misguided to allow a stand-alone article about a game where the only supposedly "extraordinary" thing about it is that the performances were poor in comparison to the rest of the season.
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Further note: The game at issue, according to
List of Texas Longhorns football games, is not even regarded as one of the great games in Texas football history. Indeed, it is not even rated as one of Texas' greatest games of the 2005 season -- the linked article lists three 2005 Texas games as being among the great games, but notably does not include this one. Moreover, I've yet to see any evidence that this game has been the subject of enduring, significant coverage after the immediate aftermath of the game. If this game, involving a poor performance by a good team, meets the standard for a stand-alone article, then "Katy bar the door," 'cause people will feel free to create game articles for just about any game played by a major program.
Cbl62 (
talk)
22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- If we put it on that list, would that make a difference?--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, putting it on the list, belatedly and while the AfD is pending, wouldn't make a difference. ;)
Cbl62 (
talk)
05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why would failing to put it on the list before make any difference? Wikipedia is far from complete, and perhaps that article is incomplete. Failure of this article to not be mentioned in that article is not a reason to delete this article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Paulmcdonald: The exclusion from the Texas games list is merely one piece of circumstantial evidence. The more central point is that there is a long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season (see
2005 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas A&M) and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance (e.g.,
1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game). You were the one who created
List of historically significant college football games -- do you honestly believe the game at issue here belongs on such a list of historically significant games? My bottom line: There is nothing historic or extraordinary about this game to warrant a departure from the general practice. Further, as noted above, noboby has presented evidence that this game received enduring coverage (i.e., significant coverage beyond news reports in the game's immediate wake).
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Good arguments and sound reasoning. Where I disagree is that I do not believe that "historic or extraordinary" are the proper measures of notability. The proper measure, in my view, is best expressed in WP:GNG and WP:N. There we find that topics are presumed acceptable for inclusion if they pass the general notability guideline and do not violate any given policy. Measures such as "historic" or "extraordinary" lead to personal interpretation instead of a specific measure. And that's why I find this article and others like it to be notable and worthy of inclusion--because this article and its "cousins" meet the specific measure.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- For me, it's not a question of notability, as most
Power Five games get enough significant, non-
WP:ROUTINE coverage to pass
WP:GNG. It's an issue of editorial judgment in how we present content about individual games, and I think team season articles are the best format, with an exception for the truly exceptional game that requires a more in depth analysis.
Cbl62 (
talk)
17:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's sound reasoning. The issue I see is that what usually happens is the game article is deleted and the season article is either never created or the game information is never added. In other words, I find that many times that "merge" is the decision but "delete" is the result. Another problem is that by using season articles for games, we now have double-entry for each game--one for the season article for the home team, and one more for the season article for the visitor team. That makes maintenance more difficult and warrants separate articles.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @
Paulmcdonald: The exclusion from the Texas games list is merely one piece of circumstantial evidence. The more central point is that there is a long-standing practice in the college football and American football projects to (a) include game summaries in articles covering each team's season (see
2005 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas A&M) and (b) limit stand-alone articles about individual games to bowl games, championship games, or, in rare cases, regular season games that have truly historic or enduring importance (e.g.,
1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game). You were the one who created
List of historically significant college football games -- do you honestly believe the game at issue here belongs on such a list of historically significant games? My bottom line: There is nothing historic or extraordinary about this game to warrant a departure from the general practice. Further, as noted above, noboby has presented evidence that this game received enduring coverage (i.e., significant coverage beyond news reports in the game's immediate wake).
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why would failing to put it on the list before make any difference? Wikipedia is far from complete, and perhaps that article is incomplete. Failure of this article to not be mentioned in that article is not a reason to delete this article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, putting it on the list, belatedly and while the AfD is pending, wouldn't make a difference. ;)
Cbl62 (
talk)
05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- If we put it on that list, would that make a difference?--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Further note: The game at issue, according to
List of Texas Longhorns football games, is not even regarded as one of the great games in Texas football history. Indeed, it is not even rated as one of Texas' greatest games of the 2005 season -- the linked article lists three 2005 Texas games as being among the great games, but notably does not include this one. Moreover, I've yet to see any evidence that this game has been the subject of enduring, significant coverage after the immediate aftermath of the game. If this game, involving a poor performance by a good team, meets the standard for a stand-alone article, then "Katy bar the door," 'cause people will feel free to create game articles for just about any game played by a major program.
Cbl62 (
talk)
22:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- The more I look at it, the clearer it becomes that this article does not warrant a stand-alone article. The "Analysis" section of the article notes that the game was Texas' "poorest performance of the season ... both offensively and defensively," and then details the poor performances given by various players and units. It strike me as fundamentally misguided to allow a stand-alone article about a game where the only supposedly "extraordinary" thing about it is that the performances were poor in comparison to the rest of the season.
Cbl62 (
talk)
16:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete/merge per Cb162. It is true that any game Texas played would have received massive coverage. We should indeed limit such as articles as these to those games that were truly significant. That being said, I'd be open to reconsidering my position if someone could provide evidence for the above claim of lasting coverage. Lepricavark ( talk) 16:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The game already has a couple of paragraphs in the Longhorns season article. Also consider deleting 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game and 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game. Just because two traditional powers clash doesn't mean the game itself deserves a monument. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Regular season NCAA football games are generally not notable. No records were set; nothing else seems more notable than other games. Fbdave ( talk) 02:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. As further support for the established practice of discouraging stand-alone articles on regular season football games, see Dirtlawyer1 and others' discussion of WP:SPORTSEVENT and related policies at the following similar AfDs (all closed as delete): (1) 1996 UCLA vs. Tennessee; (2) 2011 Michigan vs Notre Dame; (3)-(9) 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Games; (10)-(13) 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 Cowboys Classic; (14) 2008 Oregon vs. Oregon State; (15) 2007 Missouri vs. Kansas; (16) 2001 Tennessee vs. Florida; (17) 2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M; (18) 1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State; (19) 2006 USC vs. UCLA; (20) 2015 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech; (21) 2007 Pitt vs. West Virginia; (22)-(23) 2013 and 2014 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff, and (24) 2006 Texas vs. Ohio State. See also Harbaugh Bowl discussing the same principles in an NFL context. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nothing to make this particular game stand out as notable. Onel5969 TT me 18:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.