Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cam-Back

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cam-Back

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

Cannot find any sources giving this game the nickname "Cam-Back" or "Camback". As a regular season NCAA American football game, it received only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG as the article does not establish why the subject is notable. Great comeback, but does not warrant article on Wikipedia. X96lee15 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT, with lack of WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I don't see the need to merge, as Iron Bowl, 2010 Auburn Tigers football team and 2010 Alabama Crimson Tide football team sufficiently cover this game already.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This content is adequately covered in the Iron Bowl rivalry series article and 2010 Alabama Crimson Tide football team and 2010 Auburn Tigers football team season articles. Per established WP:CFB preferences, only individual regular season games that are historically significant or are otherwise important to the culture and lore of college football should have stand-alone articles. Such content should be directed to season and rivalry articles, as appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a list of the applicable notability guidelines 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, it provides that "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)" may be suitable for a stand-alone article.

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." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 14 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.