Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Backyard Brawl

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. The concerns from the deletion argument seems to have been addressed as of the time of this closing, the consensus seems to be leaning towards keep. Arguably one could view this as a no consensus as well, if the deletion side would like to bring new arguments to the table to address the concerns, there should be no prejudice to open a new AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Backyard Brawl

2007 Backyard Brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject was previously created as "2007 Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia football game" and was deleted in 2014 after this discussion. The same rationale for deletion holds now. In short, this game is not notable enough to warrant its own stand-alone article. Summary of the game at Backyard Brawl, 2007 Pittsburgh Panthers football team, and 2007 West Virginia Mountaineers football team will suffice. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the outcome of the original AFD. Nothing has changed since then. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual games of a rivalry are not inherently notable. It could potentially factor into notability if there were other reasons (that is to say, in my opinion, a single rivalry game is more likely to be notable than a single non-rivalry game that is otherwise identical), but nothing has been presented to that effect here. Smartyllama (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Keep The article has since been expanded with evidence and sources that show sustaining coverage of this game as much as three years later, so I think it now satisfies WP:GNG on its own. Smartyllama (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The content that was added to the article was simply that from the deleted article from two years ago. Nothing has changed since then. I don't believe there's any lasting notability of this game. — X96lee15 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There's definitely a case that could be made for this game, particularly in regards to "13–9" being a sort of in-joke between Pitt and WV fans. With a google search I see a few articles about the game published years later. ESPN's archived box score of the game is entitled simply "13–9". Typically an ESPN box score would be titled something like "Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia - Box Score - December 2, 2007. Obviously, the article as it currently exists gives no indication of, well, anything. But if someone were to put in the work I think it could be passable. Lizard (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping Smartyllama. I think the article is now borderline notable. Four references is fairly sparse and none really indicate particular notability for a Div 1 football game, but at least the article now has encyclopedic value.--Rpclod (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused regarding the status. When I first viewed it, it was just an infobox without any reference. No evidence of notability was provided. Then content and somewhat sparse references were added, which seemed to push the article just into keep. Now it has reverted to an infobox. Seems like some WP:TNT is appropriate.--Rpclod (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The place to write/expand about this topic is in the Backyard Brawl article, which, ironically, actually contains very little information about this supposedly "important" game. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has since been expanded significantly. Pinging @Jergling: and @Rpclod: who based their votes on the lack of content rather than notability, in case they want to reconsider. Also changing my own vote above to keep as I feel the article now demonstrates that this particular game is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, some keep comments were made when prose was added from previous deleted article, and while that prose should still be included in this candidate, I don't think the topic itself is notable, as it fails WP:PERSISTENCE and I don't think an individual game that isn't a championship is notable unless it has some landmark quality to it. The name "2007 Backyard Brawl" implies that there have been dozens of these games. Icebob99 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a lot of content has been snipped from this page as a result of copyright concerns. As a result, it now has nothing but an infobox. If the article is not deleted, the closing admin should perform a history merge to the old version of the article and restore the prose content. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Every college football game gets news media coverage in the US; very few are notable for our purposes. This basically empty article certainly is not one of those very few. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple areas where routine coverage in reliable sources (i.e., basic GNG) has been agreed upon as not sufficient. Academics and professors springs to mind, as does entertainers. I'm making the observation in the wrong place, perhaps, but given the obsessive level of attention that college football attracts in this country, I would argue that routine coverage of each and every iteration of a frequent match up does not make a football game notable unless that game was exceptionally or specially notable. If this game was in some way special, then that should have been in the article text and sources. Neither did I see any reason in my own searches to indicate that this was anything other than a routine meeting of these teams. I hope that helps explain the above !vote. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE when it comes to sports covers basic box scores and listings. This game received much more coverage than that, and is clearly WP:NOTROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2016 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2007_Backyard_Brawl&oldid=1220557784"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Backyard Brawl, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.