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.
Question: Why is this game notable? My understanding is it is notable, because it led to the formation of the College Football Playoff.
Fbdave (
talk)
14:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The game had major implications at the time and the scope and breadth of the sources provided support the claim of notability for the article.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Deleteas nominator. References listed are at best an alternative history about what might have happened if the game result was different. This article regarding the CFP formation and cited by the SBNation reference,
Playoff approved, questions remain makes no mention of the OSU-ISU game. In fact, it even has the quote, "I don't think there was a single moment [to spark change]," ACC commissioner John Swofford said.
Fbdave (
talk)
02:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Paulmcdonald: That's true for virtually every Division I-FBS college football game. Between national coverage on ESPN, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, USA Today, etc. and local coverage from multiple newspapers and TV stations, I could find the sources to meet
WP:GNG for any game played at least for the last decade. That's why, in addition to GNG, we have
WP:ROUTINE, which specifically says "Routine events such as sports matches...may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." We have historically required individual regular season games to show a greater level of notability than GNG, and this game, whose claim to greater notability rests on a dubious SBNation article, in my opinion does not meet our historical standards for inclusion. –Grondemar00:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Sometimes a nominator may take a neutral position or even change their mind yet the AFD could remain open. The nominator is making their position clear and I see no bad faith.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
05:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTROUTINE the essay here provides arguments that "routine" is often over-used. I believe that is the case here as the coverage is far beyond the "routine coverage" of game scores only. There is significant, in-depth coverage of this game.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
05:22, 28 January 2017 (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.
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.
Question: Why is this game notable? My understanding is it is notable, because it led to the formation of the College Football Playoff.
Fbdave (
talk)
14:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The game had major implications at the time and the scope and breadth of the sources provided support the claim of notability for the article.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Deleteas nominator. References listed are at best an alternative history about what might have happened if the game result was different. This article regarding the CFP formation and cited by the SBNation reference,
Playoff approved, questions remain makes no mention of the OSU-ISU game. In fact, it even has the quote, "I don't think there was a single moment [to spark change]," ACC commissioner John Swofford said.
Fbdave (
talk)
02:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Paulmcdonald: That's true for virtually every Division I-FBS college football game. Between national coverage on ESPN, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, USA Today, etc. and local coverage from multiple newspapers and TV stations, I could find the sources to meet
WP:GNG for any game played at least for the last decade. That's why, in addition to GNG, we have
WP:ROUTINE, which specifically says "Routine events such as sports matches...may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." We have historically required individual regular season games to show a greater level of notability than GNG, and this game, whose claim to greater notability rests on a dubious SBNation article, in my opinion does not meet our historical standards for inclusion. –Grondemar00:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Sometimes a nominator may take a neutral position or even change their mind yet the AFD could remain open. The nominator is making their position clear and I see no bad faith.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
05:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTROUTINE the essay here provides arguments that "routine" is often over-used. I believe that is the case here as the coverage is far beyond the "routine coverage" of game scores only. There is significant, in-depth coverage of this game.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
05:22, 28 January 2017 (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.