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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

College Football Risk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this fails WP:GNG - even though there are several sources, most are either primary or fan-run blogs. It looks like there's two non-blog articles which discuss the game (MSN and Fort Worth Star-Telegram) the MSN article simply picked up a Bleacher Report blog post here. The Fort Worth article is also relatively brief. Web searches brought up no additional reliable, secondary, significant coverage. SportingFlyer T· C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source (namely, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). Therefore, it satisfies the minimum requirements for notability. Mlb96 ( talk) 22:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not necessarily saying there is a minimum, I just don't know how you can write a reliable encyclopaedia article off the back of one seven-sentence article. The "a single source is okay" argument usually only works for exceptional cases (historical bios, etc.) - common sense dictates this is not one of those cases. SportingFlyer T· C 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:54, 30 June 2021 (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.
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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

College Football Risk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this fails WP:GNG - even though there are several sources, most are either primary or fan-run blogs. It looks like there's two non-blog articles which discuss the game (MSN and Fort Worth Star-Telegram) the MSN article simply picked up a Bleacher Report blog post here. The Fort Worth article is also relatively brief. Web searches brought up no additional reliable, secondary, significant coverage. SportingFlyer T· C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 05:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source (namely, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). Therefore, it satisfies the minimum requirements for notability. Mlb96 ( talk) 22:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not necessarily saying there is a minimum, I just don't know how you can write a reliable encyclopaedia article off the back of one seven-sentence article. The "a single source is okay" argument usually only works for exceptional cases (historical bios, etc.) - common sense dictates this is not one of those cases. SportingFlyer T· C 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:54, 30 June 2021 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook