Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 -- Samir 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game

[edit]
2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another football game that's hardly distinguishable from the other football games of this season. The fact that Texas won the national championship is of little consolation. See my comments on others below. The Evil Spartan 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not see any historic notability for this article either. These football games are covered by multiple sources and articles like this try to collection information reported by these sources and rehash the box score. I really feel like is ideal for WikiNews. Since the article only has 1 real contributer, would moving it be a problem? Corpx 05:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, and Corpx. IvoShandor 11:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep articles on other football games. This article is very well referenced and is probably notable enough Czac 13:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason under policy to justify deleting this article. And there are many reasons to keep it; these include:
  1. These article do NOT simply duplicate what is available elsewhere. We can bring together facts from multiple sources. For instance, the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.
  2. We can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with.
  3. We can aid the reader with informative links to related topics, such as terms used in college football. No news source does that, not even online news sources.
  4. Unlike some on-line newspapers, access to our stories will always be free of charge, so long as we don't delete them.
  5. Many of our articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.
Thank you, Johntex\talk 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the other AFD, every D1 (and D1-AA) game will pass WP:N because it will be covered by multiple sources; however, that does not mean we should have a recap for every D1 football game. The reasons you described makes me think that this is even more appropriate for wikinews. As for the GA, all an article needs to attain GA status is approval from one editor. To me, being GA really doesn't say much about an article. Corpx 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission then, every D1 article deserves to be kept here because they all comply with policy. Here is a policy quote to prove it:
From WP:N - "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - This article passes that test and should be kept.
As to GA, it is not the same as FA but if it means nothing then why don't you try to go get rid of it?
These articles are working there way to FA quality but they can't get there if we delete them.
As to wikinews - that is completely inappropriate. These articles take weeks of work or longer to do well. There is no point trying to pass them off as current news by that time. Besides, the wikinews license is incompatible with ours. More than that, they are appropriate here so talking about moving them is trying to fix a non-existent problem. Johntex\talk 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing WP:N is not an automatic ticket to notability. We exclude several things that pass WP:N (guideline), but are superseded by policies like WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BLP. Every sporting event and every story on the front page of cnn.com is going to be covered by other reliable sources and thus, putting it over the bar set by WP:N, but that does not mean we should have articles for it. I'm strongly opposed to using an encyclopedia as the place for game recaps and I really fail to see any "historic notability" for this game. Since you're the sole contributor to the article, the article can be transferred (copy/paste) to wikinews with your approval of re-licensing. That's the response I got from asking about this issue at #wikinews. Corpx 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people at #wikinews have probably not read the talk page of the article. If you will read Talk:2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game you will see that I am not the sole writer of the article. The article was split off per WP:Summary style from the parent article. Therefore, all authors of the parent article prior to the date of the split must be give authorship credit under the GFDL license. Johntex\talk 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Transwiki/copy/paste is not possible then. WP:SUMMARY is not a free pass to split off content into a new article. We see this at AFDs constantly with trivia sections, plot summaries and many other things that were split off because the initial article got too big, but end up getting deleted at AFD. You cant over-ride WP:NOT#NEWS (policy) with WP:SUMMARY Corpx 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for any kind of free pass at all. This article does not violate WP:NOT#NEWS. There is nothing in WP:NOT#NEWS that mandates deleting any article. In fact, the most useful sentence there states, "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately" There is no violation here, hence, there is no reason to delete the article. Johntex\talk 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This game is not "historic" enough to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. BLP was just cited as an example, as it does not directly apply here. I was attended this game, and I love UT to death, but I really do not feel like this game is anywhere close to being historically notable. The 2006 Rose Bowl game on the other hand, I'd say has historic notability as it determined the national champion. The aggies went off to finish the year 5-6, and not being bowl eligible. They put up a good fight, but the #2 team in the nation playing a 5-5 team has no historic notability, and the rivalry is downplayed because of how bad the Aggies were that season. Corpx 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say the Aggies were bad that season yet they gave the eventual national-champions Longhorns almost all they can handle - certainly sounds like a notable game. Also, thank you for reminding me of yet another significant thing about this particular game; it was the game that kept the Aggies from being bowl eligible. Johntex\talk 06:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USC gave the eventual national champions almost all they can handle. Unlike the MNC game, Texas was in thorough control for most of the game. Coming within 11 points of the eventual national champion to me does not signify historical significance. Aggies have went to bowl games 29 times (including 2006) in their history, so more often than not, they are not a bowl contender. Corpx 07:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Corpx. I watched this game - it was certainly closer than most people expected, but the fact that it wasn't a blowout doesn't make it notable. Cogswobbletalk 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is just a regular game out of a infinity number of those, this is nowhere as notable as the Hawaii Bowl 2006 article that is nominated as well.--JForget 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as in most things, if someone is willing to write a well-sourced article about it ... well ... we're not a paper encyclopedia. --B 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we're also not a news site or indiscriminate collection of information, meaning we don't need articles on every game out there. Why can't this just be part of the article on the 2005 season? The Evil Spartan 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please go look at the 2005 season article and I think you will quickly understand. In order to ensure complete coverage of the topic, the main article grew to the point where reviewers suggested splitting out content per WP:SUMMARY. That is what was done. 3 new articles on 3 of the most important games were the result. The three games were the ones against highly ranked Ohio State, school-rival Oklahoma, and school-rival A&M - which also happened to be a narrow victory that almost cost the Longhorns the championship. The first 2 have already been recognized as Wikipedia:Good articles. There is nothing indiscriminate about these articles. Johntex\talk 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SUMMARY is "manual of style" - that should be used to split off content that is otherwise in violation of other policies or guidelines. Corpx 02:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johntex's assertions. — BQZip01 — talk 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johntex. This article was created as requested by several peer reviewers, good article reviewers and featured article reviewers. Why request an article be broken up to reduce size and they nomimate those spun-off articles for deletion? ↔NMajdan•talk 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johntex. This article is justified under the WP:SUMMARY guidelines. Karanacs 15:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one is well sourced and actually came out of another article that was getting too long. As said above, it's justified per WP:SUMMARY. Phydend 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article followed guidelines and supports a strong FA candidate. Let's not turn the project into a Brazilian-esque labyrinth. --Bobak 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can just as easily be linked to if it were initially created on WikiNews. Corpx 18:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was not originally created on WikiNews so your point is irrelevant here. As you agree above, it cannot be transwikied. Johntex\talk 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazilian-esque labyrinth? Is that some underhanded, backwards way at calling "delete" people censors? Not very sneaky imo. If it's not, apologies, perhaps use less vague language. I don't think anyone who's claimed goal is to eliminate terrorism would start by deleting a wikipedia article on a non-notable football game. IvoShandor 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This particular game doesn't seem notable enough to me for inclusion here. If the section for this game grew so long that it had to be split into a new article, then it probably means that the section was just too long. Obviously, games involving the 2005 Texas team are more notable than other 2005 games, but not every game is notable in and of itself, and I don't see anything particularly special about this game. Cogswobbletalk 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it would be covered in another article, but is too big to exist within that article. MECU≈talk 15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering - why does there need to be such a huge amount of text about this particular game? I don't see how this particular game is so notable. Cogswobbletalk 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer: there doesn't need to be, this article is a game summary, much more suitable for a sports almanac or news site than an encyclopedia. IvoShandor 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case at all. This is clearly written as an encyclopedia article. It is not just a collection of statistics as you would expect from a sports almanac; It is not a recent topic as you would expect from a news source. Johntex\talk 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article seems well written. I still don't see how this particular game is notable enough that it needs an article. Cogswobbletalk 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This game was not like any other game that season. This particular game was a meeting of two traditional rivals in the third most-played rivalry in college football. The Longhorns had the worst performance of their season and came close to loosing the game. The article explains that the game probably cost Vince Young the Heisman Troply, that is not true of any other game. However, the Longhorns did win and they went on to win the national championship in a game that has been called one of the greatest college football games of all time. The Longhorns could never have even played for the national championship if Texas A&M had beaten them here. Hence, the game was very important in the ultimate outcome of the season. Johntex\talk 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how any of those things make the game that significant. It's a well known rivalry? The rivalry certainly deserves a page. It might have cost Young the Heisman? That deserves a mention over on Vince Young. The Longhorns wouldn't have played for the championship if they had lost? That's true for each game they played that year, and should be mentioned over on the 2005 team's article. I watched this game, along with several of Texas' other games that year. I don't think the fact that the 2005 Longhorns played in a game makes it significant enough to warrant an article, and I still don't see anything extra notable about this win against a team that was 5-5.Cogswobbletalk 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every article can be about the sun, moon, stars or bread, water, and housing. This game has the requisite number of sources to pass WP:V. It is written in prose as an encyclopedia article should be. It is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics or facts. It does not violate WP:BLP. It is not a copyright violation.... In short, it violates no policy. It fills a useful role for some readers, as evidenced here. You may not care. That's fine. Johntex\talk 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every D1 football game will be verifiable and will be covered by independent sources, but that does not mean we should have 57+ new articles covering these games every week. Corpx 05:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have that many new articles a day on tiny elementary schools and unknown rock bands. Let's look at quality instead of quantity. If people write a quality article on a sporting event, so long as it complies with policies like WP:BLP, then Wikipedia is better for it. If they do that 57 times a week or 57 times a day, all the better. Johntex\talk 14:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. People should instead write those articles at Wikinews and use inter-wiki linking Corpx 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above strong justifications for deleting. Clearly this is not sportapedia. What makes penalties in a game encyclopedic? Vegaswikian 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article only talks about what affected the subject of the article. The penalties affected the outcome of the game. Johntex\talk 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with Johntex. JohnTex has cited the appropriate policy that warrents keeping this article. Every article doesn't need to have the historical signifigance of Jango Fett. For those of you that think it wasn't signifigant, what makes a college football game "signifigant?" General125 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A significant game is one that is talked about years and years later, one that is remembered by many because it was so significant. Notability is not temporary. The sources in this article that talk about the game do so within the season it was played. These are incidental sources and do nothing to establish notability. Will people remember this game, among the pantheon of games that occurred in the 2005 season, ten, 25 or 50 years from now, will it be considered important? Maybe by Longhorns fans or Aggies fans, but that doesn't make it notable or significant. IvoShandor 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't ESPN.com, and this game isn't Michigan vs. App State. shoy 20:22, 8 September 2007 (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/2005_Texas_vs._Texas_A%26M_football_game&oldid=1137513159"