- 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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
2013 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff
- 2013 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The single source, which is boilerplate WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails to establish any significance of this game per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Everything here that's worth including should be summarized at Texas Kickoff instead. Grayfell ( talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the AdvoCare Texas Kickoff should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 ( talk) 23:39 7 October 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 17:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC) - FYI, the individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game articles for the 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 editions of the game have also been nominated for AfD. These similar articles are not being treated any differently than the individual Texas Kickoff games. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 05:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --
Ahecht (
TALK
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable regular season college football game. Individual regular season CFB kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discourged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Texas Kickoff. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 ( talk) 01:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep even the one source in the article is far beyond the definition set forth in WP:ROUTINE.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 04:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- ESPN published recaps of similar length and depth for the thirteen Oklahoma State games (
click on any result), and the thirteen Mississippi State games (
ditto) in 2013. Does every one of these 25 games deserve an article? If this isn't routine, what on Earth is?
Grayfell (
talk) 05:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Grayfell, I'm sure that several 500 to 1,000-word post-game recaps of this game can be found on ESPN, etc. Most of them will be based on the AP wire recap article that is written for most Division I games. Nevertheless, that is typical coverage for Division I college football games and constitutes the very definition of
WP:ROUTINE coverage for Division I college football.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 06:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- By that standard, we should delete the article
Barack Obama because all coverage is "routine" for any US President. Fortunately, that is not what "Routine" actually says and in the case of sporting events, "sports scores" is the standard. Not every game gets premiere coverage like is shown, therefore it is not "routine" at all. Personally, I don't like all the individual game articles. But
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that ROUTINE defines "sports matches" as "routine events," Paul. Are you aware of a similar provision that defines the elections and administrations of U.S. Presidents as "routine events"? The better analogy is that we don't include stand-alone articles about presidential press releases, presidential interviews, or presidential press conferences -- because they are routine events (with very few exceptions). IDONTLIKEIT has precious little to do with it.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- It also defines "routine coverage" as "sports scores" which this subject clearly exceeds.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that ROUTINE defines "sports matches" as "routine events," Paul. Are you aware of a similar provision that defines the elections and administrations of U.S. Presidents as "routine events"? The better analogy is that we don't include stand-alone articles about presidential press releases, presidential interviews, or presidential press conferences -- because they are routine events (with very few exceptions). IDONTLIKEIT has precious little to do with it.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- By that standard, we should delete the article
Barack Obama because all coverage is "routine" for any US President. Fortunately, that is not what "Routine" actually says and in the case of sporting events, "sports scores" is the standard. Not every game gets premiere coverage like is shown, therefore it is not "routine" at all. Personally, I don't like all the individual game articles. But
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Grayfell, I'm sure that several 500 to 1,000-word post-game recaps of this game can be found on ESPN, etc. Most of them will be based on the AP wire recap article that is written for most Division I games. Nevertheless, that is typical coverage for Division I college football games and constitutes the very definition of
WP:ROUTINE coverage for Division I college football.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 06:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- ESPN published recaps of similar length and depth for the thirteen Oklahoma State games (
click on any result), and the thirteen Mississippi State games (
ditto) in 2013. Does every one of these 25 games deserve an article? If this isn't routine, what on Earth is?
Grayfell (
talk) 05:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:
- 1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".
- 2. WP:NSPORTS/ WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."
- 3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."
- 4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
- 5. WP:Notability (events)/ WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 ( talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I object to the proposal to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)I can absolutely see some logic in combining, but in the end, it seems like a waste of time. If we combine them it will generate more confusion, and failure to reach consensus seems much more likely. If that happens, the next step would be to nominate them all individually again anyway. Since that's how we started, that seems like bureaucratic nonsense. We're here now, let's just finish it. I get why it may be a bit of a hassle to deal with multiple discussions covering similar issues, but it's also a hassle to have to deal with all of the very similar, minimally-sourced articles. Since notability is not inherited, it needs to be established separately for each game. For that reason I don't think these AFDs should be combined. Grayfell ( talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is whether individual games are notable. The process of individual assessment isn't simplified but is instead muddled by wrapping all the games into a single AfD. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Dirtlawyer1 with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Texas Kickoff and/or the specific 2013 Mississippi State/Oklahoma State season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 ( talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator. WP:ROUTINE etc. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:08, 11 October 2014 (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
2013 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff
- 2013 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The single source, which is boilerplate WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails to establish any significance of this game per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Everything here that's worth including should be summarized at Texas Kickoff instead. Grayfell ( talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game has an individual article for each game so the AdvoCare Texas Kickoff should also have an individual article for each game. Michiganwolverines2014 ( talk) 23:39 7 October 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 17:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC) - FYI, the individual Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game articles for the 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 editions of the game have also been nominated for AfD. These similar articles are not being treated any differently than the individual Texas Kickoff games. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 05:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
-
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --
Ahecht (
TALK
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable regular season college football game. Individual regular season CFB kickoff games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of individual games in the series. Preseason kickoff games are not bowl games or playoff games; they are regular season games and merit no special consideration. Furthermore, pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should of some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discourged; content regarding such individual regular season games should be incorporated into a parent article about the game series (see, e.g., Florida–Georgia football rivalry, Cowboys Classic), or the season articles about the individual teams (see, e.g., 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team). For all of these reasons, this single-game article should be Deleted, and a handful of highlights from this article should be incorporated into a one-paragraph summary of the game in the parent article, Texas Kickoff. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is nothing notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 ( talk) 01:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jweiss11 ( talk) 04:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep even the one source in the article is far beyond the definition set forth in WP:ROUTINE.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 04:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- ESPN published recaps of similar length and depth for the thirteen Oklahoma State games (
click on any result), and the thirteen Mississippi State games (
ditto) in 2013. Does every one of these 25 games deserve an article? If this isn't routine, what on Earth is?
Grayfell (
talk) 05:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Grayfell, I'm sure that several 500 to 1,000-word post-game recaps of this game can be found on ESPN, etc. Most of them will be based on the AP wire recap article that is written for most Division I games. Nevertheless, that is typical coverage for Division I college football games and constitutes the very definition of
WP:ROUTINE coverage for Division I college football.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 06:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- By that standard, we should delete the article
Barack Obama because all coverage is "routine" for any US President. Fortunately, that is not what "Routine" actually says and in the case of sporting events, "sports scores" is the standard. Not every game gets premiere coverage like is shown, therefore it is not "routine" at all. Personally, I don't like all the individual game articles. But
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that ROUTINE defines "sports matches" as "routine events," Paul. Are you aware of a similar provision that defines the elections and administrations of U.S. Presidents as "routine events"? The better analogy is that we don't include stand-alone articles about presidential press releases, presidential interviews, or presidential press conferences -- because they are routine events (with very few exceptions). IDONTLIKEIT has precious little to do with it.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- It also defines "routine coverage" as "sports scores" which this subject clearly exceeds.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that ROUTINE defines "sports matches" as "routine events," Paul. Are you aware of a similar provision that defines the elections and administrations of U.S. Presidents as "routine events"? The better analogy is that we don't include stand-alone articles about presidential press releases, presidential interviews, or presidential press conferences -- because they are routine events (with very few exceptions). IDONTLIKEIT has precious little to do with it.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- By that standard, we should delete the article
Barack Obama because all coverage is "routine" for any US President. Fortunately, that is not what "Routine" actually says and in the case of sporting events, "sports scores" is the standard. Not every game gets premiere coverage like is shown, therefore it is not "routine" at all. Personally, I don't like all the individual game articles. But
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Grayfell, I'm sure that several 500 to 1,000-word post-game recaps of this game can be found on ESPN, etc. Most of them will be based on the AP wire recap article that is written for most Division I games. Nevertheless, that is typical coverage for Division I college football games and constitutes the very definition of
WP:ROUTINE coverage for Division I college football.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk) 06:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- ESPN published recaps of similar length and depth for the thirteen Oklahoma State games (
click on any result), and the thirteen Mississippi State games (
ditto) in 2013. Does every one of these 25 games deserve an article? If this isn't routine, what on Earth is?
Grayfell (
talk) 05:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:
- 1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".
- 2. WP:NSPORTS/ WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."
- 3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."
- 4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
- 5. WP:Notability (events)/ WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:ROUTINE; this particular individual game is not noteworthy in itself for a separate article. Jrcla2 ( talk) 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Just a routine game, one of hundreds played each year in college football. Nothing that makes this one stand out as being historical. Reso lute 14:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I object to the proposal to combine this AfD and any others pending as procedurally out of order. Only rarely does it make sense to propose a bundled multi-article AfD. Invariably, the fairest way is to to nominate articles individually, and to judge each and every individual article on its individual merits, and that is the normal AfD procedure. Moreover, many of these articles have nothing in common except for the fact that their subjects are all regular season college football games. As I have said before, multi-article AfDs often lead to no-consensus outcomes because AfD discussion participants desire different outcomes for different articles included, and the AfD discussion becomes hopelessly muddled when it includes multiple articles. Furthermore, the stated position of the "keep" !votes is that these are articles are individually notable and individually suitable for inclusion; demanding a mass AfD for 16 different game articles is logically incoherent with that position. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)I can absolutely see some logic in combining, but in the end, it seems like a waste of time. If we combine them it will generate more confusion, and failure to reach consensus seems much more likely. If that happens, the next step would be to nominate them all individually again anyway. Since that's how we started, that seems like bureaucratic nonsense. We're here now, let's just finish it. I get why it may be a bit of a hassle to deal with multiple discussions covering similar issues, but it's also a hassle to have to deal with all of the very similar, minimally-sourced articles. Since notability is not inherited, it needs to be established separately for each game. For that reason I don't think these AFDs should be combined. Grayfell ( talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is whether individual games are notable. The process of individual assessment isn't simplified but is instead muddled by wrapping all the games into a single AfD. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Dirtlawyer1 with a particular emphasis on WP:ROUTINE and incorporate content to Texas Kickoff and/or the specific 2013 Mississippi State/Oklahoma State season articles where applicable. Patriarca12 ( talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator. WP:ROUTINE etc. -- DoctorBob3 ( talk) 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. JohnInDC ( talk) 12:08, 11 October 2014 (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.