Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Oklahoma State vs. Iowa State football game

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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Oklahoma State vs. Iowa State football game

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

No references backing up the article. Fbdave (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have several sources I can add. This game had a huge impact on college football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmew32 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep methinks this AfD is premature. Give the article creator more time. Also, did the nominator do any
Lepricavark (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 00:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Question: Why is this game notable? My understanding is it is notable, because it led to the formation of the College Football Playoff. Fbdave (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this game is clearly notable because of the overwhelming amount of coverage it received in third party reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game is HUGE in the College Football World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.66.100 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game had major implications at the time and the scope and breadth of the sources provided support the claim of notability for the article. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into
weasel words
such as

The rematch is cited by many as and Thus, some people have marked and are cited to

reliable sources for claims such as these. –Grondemar 06:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Game had a significant impact on the future of college football. As such, it is clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as nominator. References listed are at best an alternative history about what might have happened if the game result was different. This article regarding the CFP formation and cited by the SBNation reference, Playoff approved, questions remain makes no mention of the OSU-ISU game. In fact, it even has the quote, "I don't think there was a single moment [to spark change]," ACC commissioner John Swofford said. Fbdave (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even if that were true, there is still more than enough significant third party coverage in reliable sources to more than surpass
  WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - @
    WP:ROUTINE, which specifically says "Routine events such as sports matches...may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." We have historically required individual regular season games to show a greater level of notability than GNG, and this game, whose claim to greater notability rests on a dubious SBNation article, in my opinion does not meet our historical standards for inclusion. –Grondemar 00:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - @Fbdave: Please do not vote twice. Your nomination counts as a delete vote. I would suggest you strike this additional vote to avoid confusion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment as nominator: I thought that the nominator was allowed to participate in the
      deletion discussion. Fbdave (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Sometimes a nominator may take a neutral position or even change their mind yet the AFD could remain open. The nominator is making their position clear and I see no bad faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTROUTINE the essay here provides arguments that "routine" is often over-used. I believe that is the case here as the coverage is far beyond the "routine coverage" of game scores only. There is significant, in-depth coverage of this game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Struck duplicate !vote from nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 29 January 2017 (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.