- 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. Randykitty ( talk) 23:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2012 Texas A&M vs. Alabama 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)
Article currently has one lone citation re the box score and fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. . There is routine coverage commensurate with the No 1. ranked team losing, but not much more or of long-term significance. Issues tagged since 2014 & 2016. See Category:College football games as helpful. UW Dawgs ( talk) 23:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (with no prejudice toward re-creation) not for notability, but for violating policy WP:OR (original research). The one source given in the article contains only statistics that I can see, and the article is peppered with opinions (such as in the section AFTERMATH and the data in the lead about the Heisman Trophy). It's not enough. Because of this policy violation (and because it references living persons and could therefore be impacted by WP:BLP as well), the article should be removed from mainspace. HOWEVER, the game could have the WP:IMPACT needed to achieve notability because of its influence on the Heisman race (as asserted in the article without sources) so I would not oppose USERFY for the article if an enthusiastic editor wants to take custody and prepare it with proper sources so that it no longer violates policy.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (agree with no prejudice to recreation) Per Paulmcdonald- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 00:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of notability. There's no coverage other than contemporaneous WP:MILL sports coverage. I don't see any reason to expect that re-creation would be beneficial. Not all Alabama football losses are notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Paul McDonald. We really need sources. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:22, 11 February 2019 (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. Randykitty ( talk) 23:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2012 Texas A&M vs. Alabama 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)
Article currently has one lone citation re the box score and fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. . There is routine coverage commensurate with the No 1. ranked team losing, but not much more or of long-term significance. Issues tagged since 2014 & 2016. See Category:College football games as helpful. UW Dawgs ( talk) 23:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (with no prejudice toward re-creation) not for notability, but for violating policy WP:OR (original research). The one source given in the article contains only statistics that I can see, and the article is peppered with opinions (such as in the section AFTERMATH and the data in the lead about the Heisman Trophy). It's not enough. Because of this policy violation (and because it references living persons and could therefore be impacted by WP:BLP as well), the article should be removed from mainspace. HOWEVER, the game could have the WP:IMPACT needed to achieve notability because of its influence on the Heisman race (as asserted in the article without sources) so I would not oppose USERFY for the article if an enthusiastic editor wants to take custody and prepare it with proper sources so that it no longer violates policy.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (agree with no prejudice to recreation) Per Paulmcdonald- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 00:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of notability. There's no coverage other than contemporaneous WP:MILL sports coverage. I don't see any reason to expect that re-creation would be beneficial. Not all Alabama football losses are notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Paul McDonald. We really need sources. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:22, 11 February 2019 (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.