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.
keep typically we retain articles about the upcoming events for major bowl games such as this. There is plenty of information about the game even before we know the teams. There is even a
website for the event. Should be a clear pass of
WP:GNG even for a future event.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Neutral I think the nominator is right as an article requires secondary sources in order not to violate
WP:TOOSOON, and the article is currently completely unreferenced: I quickly tried to reference it but had difficulty, as there were lots of ticket sites in the first few pages of a search. I want to vote delete as a result but I feel as if I'd be overly pedantic if I did so.
SportingFlyertalk02:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Sources: 2018 Cotton Bowl Classic" on Google returns 16 results, and "2018 Cotton Bowl" returns 2,390, but mostly from this past year's event. News results return 1 and 4, respectively. Clearly no evidence of notability yet in secondary, reliable sources. JTP(
talk •
contribs)03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The unreferenced is a valid argument but becomes no longer relevant once a source is added, which I just did. If it was one of the hundreds of bowl games I can understand waiting for sources, but this is for the Playoffs so I can understand the early focus. A redirect to College Football Playoffs, or Cotton Bowl Classic, would of been a better alternative than requesting deletion.
WikiVirusC(talk)04:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as it is a notable event that will certainly occur, and even if it does not, it will be notable for not happening. L293D (
☎ •
✎)00:37, 8 March 2018 (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.
keep typically we retain articles about the upcoming events for major bowl games such as this. There is plenty of information about the game even before we know the teams. There is even a
website for the event. Should be a clear pass of
WP:GNG even for a future event.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Neutral I think the nominator is right as an article requires secondary sources in order not to violate
WP:TOOSOON, and the article is currently completely unreferenced: I quickly tried to reference it but had difficulty, as there were lots of ticket sites in the first few pages of a search. I want to vote delete as a result but I feel as if I'd be overly pedantic if I did so.
SportingFlyertalk02:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Sources: 2018 Cotton Bowl Classic" on Google returns 16 results, and "2018 Cotton Bowl" returns 2,390, but mostly from this past year's event. News results return 1 and 4, respectively. Clearly no evidence of notability yet in secondary, reliable sources. JTP(
talk •
contribs)03:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The unreferenced is a valid argument but becomes no longer relevant once a source is added, which I just did. If it was one of the hundreds of bowl games I can understand waiting for sources, but this is for the Playoffs so I can understand the early focus. A redirect to College Football Playoffs, or Cotton Bowl Classic, would of been a better alternative than requesting deletion.
WikiVirusC(talk)04:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as it is a notable event that will certainly occur, and even if it does not, it will be notable for not happening. L293D (
☎ •
✎)00:37, 8 March 2018 (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.