Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 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.

3:16 game

3:16 game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

A similarly named page (different capitalization) was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 Game. This article largely duplicates what is already at Tim Tebow. The section 3:16 game § Background is covered at Tim Tebow § "The Tebow Rule" , and 3:16 game § Statistical coincidences is at the game's coverage at Tim Tebow § 2011 season.

Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

The 3:16 references are more relevant to Tim Tebow than the game, and its details from the game are already covered in his bio, which has the relevant background of his college references to 3:16. For the NFL game itself, other pages this topic overlaps with, aside from Tebow's bio, are 2011–12 NFL playoffs, 2011 Denver Broncos season, and 2011 Pittsburgh Steelers season. —Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This game can be covered at the Tebow article and in the two team-season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. This article is honestly mostly just trivia. If it wasn't for Tebow being a big religious guy this is just something that would be written about once a decade that makes people go "... huh. Neat." Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G4. Delete per nom. No actual notability other than this weird coincidence.🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted, per what I said in the edit summary: "G4 says 'sufficiently identical copies', doubtful since there's [a source] from 2017 here and the afd was 9!! years ago. also, article got a green tick for dyk and is on-hold at GAN." It's better to let the AfD run its course. Skyshiftertalk 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changing my response to reflect that. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as pure trivia, no lasting impact; anything relevant can be inserted into parent articles. Also fails
  WP:LASTING; all, save a couple, of the sources provided are from 2012, and if we customize our search of newsoutlets to establish when it was last discussed: it hasn't been, since 2020 at least. And they're not even mentions, let alone in-depth discussion. ——Serial Number 54129 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Not notable for standalone inclusion. Some content can be merged into parent articles as explained above (though I oppose any redirect of this title). I agree that G4 speedy does not apply. Frank Anchor 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per the sources added by Beaniefan, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep when reliable sources cover the topic in depth it is a keep. Washington post: "Tim Tebow: Credit John 3:16, John Elway and John Fox" CBS "John 3:16: Tebow stat line evokes biblical verse" Los Angeles Times "John 3:16 message delivered by Tim Tebow's arm" The Denver Post "Focus on the Family unveils John 3:16 ad during Broncos game" Time Magazine "Tim Tebow's 316 Passing Yards Evokes Biblical Number". In addition there is
  WP:LASTING coverage. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Bible, and Christianity. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Frequently covered in Books. Magazines. Newspapers. Over extended period of time. Additional sources not yet in article:

• Yorkey, Mike (2012). Tim Tebow: Playing with Purpose. Barbour Publisher. p. 61.
• Gordon, Stephen G. (2013). Tim Tebow: Quarterback with Conviction. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 64.
• Sutera, David M. (2013). Sports fans 2.0: how fans are using social media to get closer to the game. Scarecrow Press. p. 30.
• Mackay, Jenny (2013). Tim Tebow. Lucent Books. p. 40.
• Patterson, James (2018). All-American murder: the rise and fall of Aaron Hernandez. Little, Brown and Company. p. 116.

There are more sources, but I don't want to flood the page. The point is, lots of sourcing, and this is how we determine notability. The nom is correct there is some existing coverage elsewhere on WP. That's how it should work, limited coverage in other articles, all pointing to this the main article that has the most depth of detail, that doesn't require the reader to navigate around to piece information together. -- GreenC 19:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're either being intentionally dishonest or simply careless. The first of these sources I happened to check (the third one, sports fans 2.0, p30) makes absolutely no mention of this game. This is entirely about Rollen Stewart (that guy who dressed up in a clown wig with John 3:16 signs at games). I stopped looking after that due to a loss of trust. Is there any particular reason we should take any of your other sources seriously? Do any of them discuss the game in depth? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a hunch, I checked the other sources. Not a SINGLE ONE of these mentions the topic of the article. I strongly suggest you strike your comment as egregiously misleading. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not checked the others properly but on the last one, p.116 mentions the eye black and the start of the following chapter is where the January 8, 2012, game is covered. — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A meaningless statistical coincidence, not a significant or notable game. Since Tebow made a deal about it, it can be mentioned/merged in his own article where there's already a relevant section that includes the background – it's his own broader evokation of 3:16 that has received the coverage. The sources above repeat the same statistics but have a greater focus on Tebow's use of 3:16 in general and do not warrant a standalone article as if this game itself were notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time. Skyshiftertalk 19:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the focus on these sources is more about Tebow's use of 3:16 than this game specifically, and per
    WP:NOPAGE this can be covered better in the main article. The article has irrelevant details like Roethlisberger's interception, and Hernandez's use of it would be related to Tebow's legacy not that of this game. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep We are working through the
  WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This is ridiculous. Who scored what points and who won the coin toss are totally irrelevant to any of the coverage here. Even more ridiculous that you're doing your own OR and finding more arbitrary coincidences. Nothing about the game itself – which is covered at

  The Tebow Rule" makes more sense to expand on it as whole than to have a page like this, but stripping the impertinent details and duplication leaves just enough to merge. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling. Core reason for deletion ("it's covered elsewhere") is relatively weak in the first place: that's a great reason for an editorial discussion on the talk page, not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met: Incorrect.

  WP:DEL-REASON No. 5 reads:

  Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

  The Wikipedia:Content forks guideline advises (emphasis added)

  A content fork is a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic.

  This is a fork of the aforementioned sections already at Tim Tebow. —Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Can you explain how

  WP:PROPERSPLIT is failed by this article? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:NOTDIARY content, can be merged.—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Has any of the "Keep" voters addressed

  WP:NOTABILITY? Because this page is mostly just trivia and a weird coincidence, not actually something that's very notable. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My comment "The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time" is a reference to

  WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 11:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling." Did you even look at GreenC's? Not a single one of them even mentions the article topic in passing, let alone in depth! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, actually. I did go back and look at GreenC's in depth and your critiques are fair. Lightburst's seem fine, unless I'm missing something there? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is notable because (per the general notability guideline) "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The notability discussion also says, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity ..." Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Some lasting coverage of the game I located:
  • Greatest Broncos games of the 2010s: Steelers at Broncos, 1/8/2012 (2020) – SB Nation
  • Three years later, Demaryius Thomas looks back at Tim Tebow TD vs. Steelers (2015) – The Denver Post ("Jan. 8, 2012. It’s a date that Broncos fans will never forget.")
  • 8 Years Ago: Tim Tebow Delivers Some Mile High Magic In Final Home Broncos Game (2020) – CBS News
  • 10 years ago on January 8, 2012: Broncos' Tim Tebow to Demaryius Thomas in OT (2022) – USA Today
  • 2012 playoff loss in Denver is ancient history to Steelers (2016) – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
  • The Tim Tebow-to-Thomas Touchdown, in the words of Demaryius Thomas (2014) – The Gazette
• BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11's and Lightburst's sources, there is plenty of lasting coverage to meet GNG. And there was more to the game than what would be appropriate to cover in the Tim Tebow article. And there was more to the game than simply the 3:16 coincidences. For example, as mentioned in at least one of BeanieFan11's sources (but not I believe in the article as it stands now), it was the first overtime playoff game played under the new rules under which the game would not end in sudden death on a field goal on the first possession. Rlendog (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the sources given in the article and in this discussion show enduring notability of the game. — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There appears to be enough sources and content on this game to warrant a stand-alone article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Lightburst and BeanieFan11 that show a pass of
  WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan11.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (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.