Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Damar Hamlin. Having devoted a fair chunk of my morning to reading this a couple of times over, can I firstly say that this is one of the better examples of how cordial and constructive a Wikipedia discussion can be - minimal comments directed at editors, plenty of reference to policy and discussion about this articles' place within them, and firm comments still showing plenty of respect to others and the situation as a whole. Not something we always see at AfDs of this nature!

My assessment of this debate is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article (combination of merge + redirect, redirect, and delete). This is the overwhelming majority viewpoint of this article's compliance (or non-compliance) to our various policies that are applicable.

On this basis, the final decision taken is that this article will be redirected (as the path of least resistance for alternatives to deletion), with the following notes:

  • any editor is welcome to merge the content from behind the redirect to the main article ( Damar Hamlin or elsewhere
  • it is unlikely that there will be developments that nullify the consensus here in the immediate future, so I would encourage that this redirect decision 'stick' at least in the immediate future
  • if, in an indeterminate period of time, this needs to be revisited due to new information or further context, of course it can be at the relevant location - but I would caution to ensure that either a) the new information or further context addresses the concerns expressed by the consensus below, or b) a good-faith belief that the consensus of the community would have changed or relevant policies/guidelines had changed significantly. This would include a reframing (and renaming) of this article as being for the match itself, rather than the single incident.
  • finally, if anyone who !voted 'delete with no redirect' feels so strongly about it, please feel free to nominate at RfD at your convenience. However, again like point 3, I'd gently encourage everyone to let the situation sit on ice for a little bit if possible on this front, although ultimately I can't enforce that any more than a simple suggestion. Daniel ( talk) 22:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary content fork from Damar Hamlin. The consensus at Talk:Damar Hamlin#Does the notoriety of this incident warrant a separate article? was that a separate article was not warranted at this time. Splitting discussion between two articles at this time is not helpful to editors or writers, and the main article is not unmanageable. The creator removed the speedy deletion tag and reversed a redirection, and has generally been uncommunicative. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The bulk of the discussion on the original talk page took place before this article was created, and rationale for not splitting at that time largely hinged on there not being enough information to fork. Clearly this new article has satisfied information volume requirements, is well-sourced, and bound to continue growing as well. Whether the article creator split information properly or is being generally cooperative is a completely separate matter. -- Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert ( talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Note: this account is three days old. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    My account is actually only two days old, as I decided to pick up editing on January 1st. -- Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert ( talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    You know your way around Wikipedia's more intricate systems for a two-day old account. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. So, I was around many years ago, and suppose some amount of familiarity sticks around. There is plenty I don't know, too, and perhaps it's premature for me to jump into a discussion such as this one. I just saw it come up and jumped on it. I'll make no attempt to pretend I'm a currently established editor, but hopefully some of what I remember can be used to help in other areas. -- Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert ( talk) 15:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply


Changed to merge and redirect given the fact that the article name is a plausible search term and that some new information may have been inputed into the article. -- Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - :I agree that this comes across as a WP:Content Fork. I could see an argument being made that it feels premature and pointless to make a separate article like this when Damar Hamlin's own page contains enough information and thorough coverage of the event, although I understand why someone would, given that this incident has sparked larger discussions (mainly about health issues in American football) outside of Damar Hamlin's career and this specific incident. Largely because the article goes against the consensus on Damar Hamlin's talkpage, but also because there are no similar articles for similar incidents (like Kevin Everett or Ryan Shazier), I propose that this article be deleted - and possibly (but not likely) recreated only if there are significant developments, discussions, or outcomes that wouldn't fit Hamlin's own page. Afddiary ( talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse as a valid search term. Though the article itself is an improper article split, with consensus not to have been created, the redirect seems sensible. No merge needed, as covered adequately in the main article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename to 2023 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game – The rename is absolutely necessary, but this article needs to be kept. The amount of coverage this game received was substantial, becoming global news in fact, and is undoubtably one of the most unique games in NFL history, as an NFL game has, to my knowledge, never been postponed and then declared a No Contest as a result of a mid-game injury. It absolutely fits the notability guidelines and will stand the test of time. Aria1561 ( talk) 06:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    As mentioned above, a good alternative is to put much of the content in the 2022 NFL season article. Most (if not all) of the extra commentary about the aftermath of Hamlin's injury is not about the game itself, but how the NFL has had to react to the aftermath in terms of scheduling, playoff implications, and all the downstream repercussions. There is not much to be gained by diving into hyper-detail about one game given how little of it actually occurred and the noteworthy part was one tackle/injury. Therefore, I'd question the wisdom in diving into a dedicated article. Redirect, sure. Rename for a full blown article treatment, no. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Most (if not all) of the extra commentary about the aftermath of Hamlin's injury is not about the game itself, but how the NFL has had to react to the aftermath in terms of scheduling, playoff implications, and all the downstream repercussions. That's the problem. It isn't just Hamlin's injury, but the impact of the missing game. Do we need a standalone article about his injury? No, we didn't. Do we need a standalone article about the 'No Contest' game? I say that it does at this point. The main problem has been that the article was created against input from the community and discussing an alternative has been very painful, which is why most of the discussion above has focused on the fact that this was split off from the Hamlin article against consensus not to have a standalone article on the injury. What I think is not being considered enough is the impact of this missing game. For a game that was not played, there has been article after article on the game being cancelled. There are multiple articles on this being a rare or unprecedented decision. There are plenty of articles regarding the changes to the playoff rules. There are articles for ticket refunds, for wager refunds and payouts, and even fantasy football. Covering policy, we have a notable event that has a diverse number of sources and that prompted change. Sources have taken an indepth look at both the non-routine events that happened that day and the unique situation of the cancelation. In my viewpoint, the major policy against this article is Wikipedia:CORRECTSPLIT and the main problem is that one of the steps was not followed at the time of the AfD and has apparently been resolved. As you have said, the article name is a problem, so a redirect doesn't help. Nor does a merge when Wikipedia:NOTMERGE is considered. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 05:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Aria1561, shortly after your comment you boldly moved the page to a game-specific title ( Special:Diff/1131887688). Please don't do that. It is considered poor form to move an article when it is actively being discussed at AfD and there is no consensus for a rename. @ Super Goku V has since moved it back. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Therapyisgood ( talk) 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Are you opposing a redirect as well? 69.127.228.206 ( talk) 21:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Please don't keep spreading links to this article across Wikipedia while it is at AfD, and especially when it is trending towards being deleted/merged. More elaboration on the reasons can be found here: Talk:Damar Hamlin#Please stop adding Main or Seealso template here - Fuzheado | Talk 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Event has received enormous levels coverage (including from major national news sources, for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 articles from the New York Times) and is I believe (with the possible exception of a few 1920s/30s games) the only time a game has not been finished in NFL history. I'd say this is notable enough for a standalone article. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    As mentioned earlier, the issue isn't notability, it's about WP:SPLITTING. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and no redirect A redirect is most likely not needed as it is unlikely that anyone will search for "2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin" and will also just search for Damar Hamlin. Additionally, this may be too big of a case of WP:RECENTISM to warrant its only article at this time. Obviously, it is applicable on Hamlin's page. Grahaml35 ( talk) 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The arguments against a redirect make almost zero sense. It is extremely reasonable to have a redirect of [Year] [Event] point to a section in a biography that explicitly covers that event. I find it likely that this will show to be a notable event with lasting significance, but I'm a bit hesitant as to whether to keep or merge at this time for reasons of WP:NOPAGE. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Which arguments in particular? Lamona mentioned ( Special:Diff/1131429979) WP:AT ( WP:Article titles, policy) when objecting to the name. I'm not familiar enough with that policy to know how much it applies to redirects, but it mentions them several times. Fuzheado posted criticism of the title at Talk:Damar Hamlin#Please stop adding Main or Seealso template here ( Special:Diff/1131942429), citing WP:NCEVENTS ( WP:Naming conventions (events), guideline), WP:NOYEAR (NOYEAR anchor in the same guideline), and WP:COMMONNAME ( WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names). Flatscan ( talk) 05:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per FrankAnchor. Other than a Super Bowl, the incident has garnered more widespread coverage in mainstream media outlets (and not just on the sports pages) than any NFL-related event perhaps since Tom Brady's Deflategate scandal. It also seems highly likely that the incident will receive enduring coverage. That said, and given that we are still only one week out from the incident, the article might benefit from being developed/incubated in draft space. In a couple months, we can evaluate more fully the enduring importance of the event. That seems like a reasonable compromise and preferable to deletion or redirection. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete as of now, there is nothing I know of to warrant a separate article. If that changes, an article can be written then. BostonMensa ( talk) 14:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ BostonMensa: are you opposing a redirect as well? 69.127.228.206 ( talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Without any links, the page has received 414 views since it was created a week ago. That means people must be searching for the article title, meaning it is clearly a useful redirect term. As such, it is even clearer now that it shouldn’t be totally deleted, and anyone who says “no one will search for this” is wrong, as over 400 people have. 69.127.228.206 ( talk) 21:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment 740+ could view an unlinked article on whether people in NYC prefer Coke or Pepsi but the number of views in amd of itself doesn’t mean it is a notable subject for wiki.
    BostonMensa ( talk) 22:06, 10 January 2023 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2023_collapse_of_Damar_Hamlin&oldid=1132932217"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Damar Hamlin. Having devoted a fair chunk of my morning to reading this a couple of times over, can I firstly say that this is one of the better examples of how cordial and constructive a Wikipedia discussion can be - minimal comments directed at editors, plenty of reference to policy and discussion about this articles' place within them, and firm comments still showing plenty of respect to others and the situation as a whole. Not something we always see at AfDs of this nature!

My assessment of this debate is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article (combination of merge + redirect, redirect, and delete). This is the overwhelming majority viewpoint of this article's compliance (or non-compliance) to our various policies that are applicable.

On this basis, the final decision taken is that this article will be redirected (as the path of least resistance for alternatives to deletion), with the following notes:

  • any editor is welcome to merge the content from behind the redirect to the main article ( Damar Hamlin or elsewhere
  • it is unlikely that there will be developments that nullify the consensus here in the immediate future, so I would encourage that this redirect decision 'stick' at least in the immediate future
  • if, in an indeterminate period of time, this needs to be revisited due to new information or further context, of course it can be at the relevant location - but I would caution to ensure that either a) the new information or further context addresses the concerns expressed by the consensus below, or b) a good-faith belief that the consensus of the community would have changed or relevant policies/guidelines had changed significantly. This would include a reframing (and renaming) of this article as being for the match itself, rather than the single incident.
  • finally, if anyone who !voted 'delete with no redirect' feels so strongly about it, please feel free to nominate at RfD at your convenience. However, again like point 3, I'd gently encourage everyone to let the situation sit on ice for a little bit if possible on this front, although ultimately I can't enforce that any more than a simple suggestion. Daniel ( talk) 22:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary content fork from Damar Hamlin. The consensus at Talk:Damar Hamlin#Does the notoriety of this incident warrant a separate article? was that a separate article was not warranted at this time. Splitting discussion between two articles at this time is not helpful to editors or writers, and the main article is not unmanageable. The creator removed the speedy deletion tag and reversed a redirection, and has generally been uncommunicative. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The bulk of the discussion on the original talk page took place before this article was created, and rationale for not splitting at that time largely hinged on there not being enough information to fork. Clearly this new article has satisfied information volume requirements, is well-sourced, and bound to continue growing as well. Whether the article creator split information properly or is being generally cooperative is a completely separate matter. -- Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert ( talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Note: this account is three days old. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    My account is actually only two days old, as I decided to pick up editing on January 1st. -- Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert ( talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    You know your way around Wikipedia's more intricate systems for a two-day old account. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. So, I was around many years ago, and suppose some amount of familiarity sticks around. There is plenty I don't know, too, and perhaps it's premature for me to jump into a discussion such as this one. I just saw it come up and jumped on it. I'll make no attempt to pretend I'm a currently established editor, but hopefully some of what I remember can be used to help in other areas. -- Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert ( talk) 15:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply


Changed to merge and redirect given the fact that the article name is a plausible search term and that some new information may have been inputed into the article. -- Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - :I agree that this comes across as a WP:Content Fork. I could see an argument being made that it feels premature and pointless to make a separate article like this when Damar Hamlin's own page contains enough information and thorough coverage of the event, although I understand why someone would, given that this incident has sparked larger discussions (mainly about health issues in American football) outside of Damar Hamlin's career and this specific incident. Largely because the article goes against the consensus on Damar Hamlin's talkpage, but also because there are no similar articles for similar incidents (like Kevin Everett or Ryan Shazier), I propose that this article be deleted - and possibly (but not likely) recreated only if there are significant developments, discussions, or outcomes that wouldn't fit Hamlin's own page. Afddiary ( talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Damar Hamlin#In-game collapse as a valid search term. Though the article itself is an improper article split, with consensus not to have been created, the redirect seems sensible. No merge needed, as covered adequately in the main article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename to 2023 Buffalo Bills–Cincinnati Bengals game – The rename is absolutely necessary, but this article needs to be kept. The amount of coverage this game received was substantial, becoming global news in fact, and is undoubtably one of the most unique games in NFL history, as an NFL game has, to my knowledge, never been postponed and then declared a No Contest as a result of a mid-game injury. It absolutely fits the notability guidelines and will stand the test of time. Aria1561 ( talk) 06:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    As mentioned above, a good alternative is to put much of the content in the 2022 NFL season article. Most (if not all) of the extra commentary about the aftermath of Hamlin's injury is not about the game itself, but how the NFL has had to react to the aftermath in terms of scheduling, playoff implications, and all the downstream repercussions. There is not much to be gained by diving into hyper-detail about one game given how little of it actually occurred and the noteworthy part was one tackle/injury. Therefore, I'd question the wisdom in diving into a dedicated article. Redirect, sure. Rename for a full blown article treatment, no. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Most (if not all) of the extra commentary about the aftermath of Hamlin's injury is not about the game itself, but how the NFL has had to react to the aftermath in terms of scheduling, playoff implications, and all the downstream repercussions. That's the problem. It isn't just Hamlin's injury, but the impact of the missing game. Do we need a standalone article about his injury? No, we didn't. Do we need a standalone article about the 'No Contest' game? I say that it does at this point. The main problem has been that the article was created against input from the community and discussing an alternative has been very painful, which is why most of the discussion above has focused on the fact that this was split off from the Hamlin article against consensus not to have a standalone article on the injury. What I think is not being considered enough is the impact of this missing game. For a game that was not played, there has been article after article on the game being cancelled. There are multiple articles on this being a rare or unprecedented decision. There are plenty of articles regarding the changes to the playoff rules. There are articles for ticket refunds, for wager refunds and payouts, and even fantasy football. Covering policy, we have a notable event that has a diverse number of sources and that prompted change. Sources have taken an indepth look at both the non-routine events that happened that day and the unique situation of the cancelation. In my viewpoint, the major policy against this article is Wikipedia:CORRECTSPLIT and the main problem is that one of the steps was not followed at the time of the AfD and has apparently been resolved. As you have said, the article name is a problem, so a redirect doesn't help. Nor does a merge when Wikipedia:NOTMERGE is considered. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 05:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Aria1561, shortly after your comment you boldly moved the page to a game-specific title ( Special:Diff/1131887688). Please don't do that. It is considered poor form to move an article when it is actively being discussed at AfD and there is no consensus for a rename. @ Super Goku V has since moved it back. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Therapyisgood ( talk) 11:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Are you opposing a redirect as well? 69.127.228.206 ( talk) 21:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Please don't keep spreading links to this article across Wikipedia while it is at AfD, and especially when it is trending towards being deleted/merged. More elaboration on the reasons can be found here: Talk:Damar Hamlin#Please stop adding Main or Seealso template here - Fuzheado | Talk 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Event has received enormous levels coverage (including from major national news sources, for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 articles from the New York Times) and is I believe (with the possible exception of a few 1920s/30s games) the only time a game has not been finished in NFL history. I'd say this is notable enough for a standalone article. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    As mentioned earlier, the issue isn't notability, it's about WP:SPLITTING. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and no redirect A redirect is most likely not needed as it is unlikely that anyone will search for "2023 collapse of Damar Hamlin" and will also just search for Damar Hamlin. Additionally, this may be too big of a case of WP:RECENTISM to warrant its only article at this time. Obviously, it is applicable on Hamlin's page. Grahaml35 ( talk) 20:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The arguments against a redirect make almost zero sense. It is extremely reasonable to have a redirect of [Year] [Event] point to a section in a biography that explicitly covers that event. I find it likely that this will show to be a notable event with lasting significance, but I'm a bit hesitant as to whether to keep or merge at this time for reasons of WP:NOPAGE. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Which arguments in particular? Lamona mentioned ( Special:Diff/1131429979) WP:AT ( WP:Article titles, policy) when objecting to the name. I'm not familiar enough with that policy to know how much it applies to redirects, but it mentions them several times. Fuzheado posted criticism of the title at Talk:Damar Hamlin#Please stop adding Main or Seealso template here ( Special:Diff/1131942429), citing WP:NCEVENTS ( WP:Naming conventions (events), guideline), WP:NOYEAR (NOYEAR anchor in the same guideline), and WP:COMMONNAME ( WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names). Flatscan ( talk) 05:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per FrankAnchor. Other than a Super Bowl, the incident has garnered more widespread coverage in mainstream media outlets (and not just on the sports pages) than any NFL-related event perhaps since Tom Brady's Deflategate scandal. It also seems highly likely that the incident will receive enduring coverage. That said, and given that we are still only one week out from the incident, the article might benefit from being developed/incubated in draft space. In a couple months, we can evaluate more fully the enduring importance of the event. That seems like a reasonable compromise and preferable to deletion or redirection. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete as of now, there is nothing I know of to warrant a separate article. If that changes, an article can be written then. BostonMensa ( talk) 14:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ BostonMensa: are you opposing a redirect as well? 69.127.228.206 ( talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Without any links, the page has received 414 views since it was created a week ago. That means people must be searching for the article title, meaning it is clearly a useful redirect term. As such, it is even clearer now that it shouldn’t be totally deleted, and anyone who says “no one will search for this” is wrong, as over 400 people have. 69.127.228.206 ( talk) 21:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment 740+ could view an unlinked article on whether people in NYC prefer Coke or Pepsi but the number of views in amd of itself doesn’t mean it is a notable subject for wiki.
    BostonMensa ( talk) 22:06, 10 January 2023 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2023_collapse_of_Damar_Hamlin&oldid=1132932217"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE