Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Lights III

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 delete. Secret ^account 16:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Lights III

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Merge to 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2014 Penn State Nittany Lions football team; as successfully argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Lights at the Big House and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Lights II, WikiProject College football has a long-standing policy that stand-alone articles for regular season college football games should exist only in cases where the game was of great significance to the history of college football. This doesn't cut it now, and likely will not after the game is played. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've changed the proposal from Merge to Delete now that the game has ample coverage at 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2014 Penn State Nittany Lions football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Judging from the Wolverines record right now, unless they set multiple records next weekend and win (or if Brady Hoke pulls something else that earns more alumni ire), this clearly is going to only earn the notability of an average Northwestern/Purdue tilt. No prejudice to restoration if the game turns out to be notable, but a 2-4 team going against a 4-1 squad doesn't usually warrant an article. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a network marketing tag, not a hallmark of notability. JohnInDC (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Jweiss11's logic above. This doesn't even come close to the WP:CFB standard and previous AfD outcomes for stand-alone articles for individual CFB games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have changed my !vote from "merge" to "delete" following the playing of the game on October 11, 2014. A post-game summary has been included in the 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team article, and I no longer believe there is any remaining material from the subject article that would be useful to merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team, per prior AfD precedent cited by Jweiss11 above, and SALT all future "Under the Lights" article titles (i.e. Under the Lights IV, Under the Lights V, ect.) as the creator of these has obviously learned nothing from the two previous, identical AfD's from last year. The reason why season articles like 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2014 Penn State Nittany Lions football team exist is so that we don't need to have tons of junk articles like this one cluttering up Wikipedia with random articles about random individual regular season football games. The information about regular season football games like this one belongs under their respective season articles, except in the most exceptional of circumstances, which this clearly is not, nor is it likely ever to be. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge fails WP:GNG. Doesn't even meet the standard in essay WP:CFBGAME. Throw in WP:CRYSTAL and it's a deletion hat trick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is the 3rd night game at Michigan Stadium as well as their 1st one against a Big Ten opponent. In fact, articles such as Under the Lights at the Big House and Under the Lights II should not have ben deleted as Under the Lights at he Big House set a then-NCAA attendance record and was the 1st night game in Michigan Stadium history and also featured a Michigan comeback from a 24-7 deficit to win 35-31 and Under the Lights II the current NCAA Attendance record and was just the 2nd night game in Michigan Stadium history. You never know, something historically significant can happen in Under the Lights III just like in the 1st two night games at Michigan Stadium. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 20:22 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - MichiganWolverines2014, I am literally laughing out loud: there is nothing of historical significance about the "3rd night game at Michigan Stadium"; if that were our standard for stand-alone articles for regular season CFB games, we would have hundreds of them, not the handful we do now. This was an ordinary game which elicited WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage. Single-game articles such as this one need to be deleted with extreme prejudice. My rule of thumb: if the game doesn't merit at least two sentences in the main Michigan Wolverines football article, it probably doesn't merit a stand-alone article of its own. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing currently notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. If something CRAZY happens, then I'm all for recreating the article. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to keep separate All 17 should be slam-dunk merge/deletes. Let's let them play out as is and move on. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for sports events for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2014 (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.