Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wide left

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. The consensus is that this is not a notable event (with the proviso that the future may indeed show it to be so). If this event is still being discussed in a year or two's time (like the "Hand of God" example given by one of the contributors to this discussion), come back and ask for its recreation. Meanwhile, the consensus is that it is deleted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wide left

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

Whether this will ever be a notable topic remains to be seen. Right now, it's not: the Google hits are all over the place (no surprise: this is not the first time something went wide left), and there is no indication whatsoever that this term will become synonymous with this kick--the sources don't bear it out, and not all of them even mention the term. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is definitely a notable event per WP:EVENT. This is not just an ordinary play in a football game, and surely not a routine missed field goal. This is one that probably made all the difference in which team went to the Super Bowl in a manner that has captured the nation's attention. It is one that will likely be talked about for years to come, given the surrounding circumstances. See WP:EFFECT, it has lasting effects. As for the article title, that can be discussed, and perhaps the article could have a different title, but that is not an AFD issue. I did see the term "wide left" in several articles, and I have seen other articles titled "wide right" describing similar situations, but as I said, that is not an AFD issue. What should be discussed here is whether this article meets WP:EVENT, guidelines, which I believe it does. Also see WP:ANTICIPATION, where it says "Don't nominate too rapidly for deletion."Hellno2 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give an indication of "likely." Perhaps WP:ANTICIPATION should have a subsection with "don't create too rapidly. I do not believe this one missed field goal is itself a notable event. If it is, one might as well add Straight down the middle or It's up, and it's good for every single notable one that was hit (please start with a couple for Adam Vinatieri, for instance). Drmies (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of common sense, it can be seen that this missed field goal is not routine and will be talked about long after this football season is over. It is predictable that replays of it will be shown in future football seasons, being described as a missed opportunity, and it'll be written about in books about historic events in the NFL. When Cundiff himself is seen on national TV in a clutch situation, announcers will mention this. Already, one notable author has talked about this play. Hellno2 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that can be seen. It was a missed field goal--it happens all the time. If it's too soon for these play-offs, see the ones for last year and give David Akers a call. If a miss in a championship game is notable, then a hit in one superbowl or another ought to be even more notable--individually, as WP articles. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The football game itself with the ending and how it occurred is notable. I do think the article should be renamed though. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I modeled the name after two articles titles Wide Right, also about memorable missed field goals. I did indeed see that name used in several news articles as a reference to this play. The only other title I can see is something like Billy Cundiff's missed field goal in the 2012 AFC Championship game. But it is better to simplify the title. Most other articles about notable football plays are titled with a simple name by which they have gotten to be known (e.g. The Catch (American football), The Fumble, The Drive). Hellno2 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one could rename it 2012 AFC Championship game, which is nothing but a redirect, but why? Is this the most notable "wide left" ever? Verifiably? Drmies (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is not about the whole game, but about the one memorable play. The game already has a summary in a large section of the article. This play has so much written about it and so much to come that it is enough for a separate article. I myself am planning on adding some more. It is at the point that if all this info were to be in the article about the game itself, it would overshadow everything else. Hellno2 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That the play is memorable remains to be seen. And no, the play has not been written about that much--this is not Wide Right II, to which I've just added two book references. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost entirely per nom. I'd also say it's almost literally impossible to know currently whether the term "wide left" is and will be synonymous with this play and game. The article creator essentially admits to something very problematic in his reply to X96lee15 above, when he points out that he "modeled the name after two article titles...about memorable missed field goals," which is tantamount to inventing his own name in lieu of an existing established name for the play and game (aside from, of course, 2012 AFC Championship game). I don't see much...well, frankly, any...evidence that this has become or is becoming The Name by which This Game is known. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, what you brought up is that the title is the problem. The point of this discussion should be whether or not this event is notable, not a problem with the title. An article with a problematic title can be renamed, but that is never a reason for deletion. That is not an AFD issue. You did not give any reason why the event may not deserve an article. Hellno2 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "per nom." I know that's considered lazy, but it always feels more honest than simply regurgitating what the nominator writes. My issues regarding the title match well with the nominator's reasoning, anyway. If there's not even an established name for the play, how can we possibly consider it notable? Either way, fine, clearly violates WP:EVENT. I hope that is more clear. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have started a discussion on this article's talk page regarding what the title of this article should be. For now, I think it is a good idea to limit discussion here to whether or not this page should be kept. That is the purpose of an AFD. It is on talk pages where discussions regarding an article's title belong. Hellno2 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy WP:EVENT criteria, it is way, way too soon to say that it "persists over a period of time" or has "national or global scope". Quite notable to discuss it at the 2012 AFC Championship game section, and a short mention at Billy Cundiff, but trying to drum up notability based on simplistic "x # of sources" mere days after the game is not the right way to approach article creation. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination of this article for deletion less than 24 hours after its creation violates WP:RAPID, which states that an article about an event should not be brought to AFD too soon after its creation.Hellno2 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of an article of the event violates WP:BREAKING, which states that "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors". I would also note that the concoction of "RAPID" as a shortcut just happened moments ago, by you. I'm not sure if trying to raise the visibility of what was previously just a paragraph of WP:Breaking is a very honest move to make while this discussion is ongoing. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did just create the shortcut as a means of making it easier to print it in here. But the text of the policy has been there for many years, and it stands as it is written today.Hellno2 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a response to why you ignored the "It is wise to delay writing an article..." caution of that same section, though. How can you in good faith single out the nomination for violating one part of the Event notability guideline when you violated another part? Tarc (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's literally no evidence so far that this game will have any more significance than any of conference championship game. There's no reason for it to have its own article, at least at this point - cyberpizza13 17:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpizza13 (talk • contribs) — Cyberpizza13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - Reasons for keeping, congruous with the language of WP:EVENT, are as follows:

'’Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.’': T start off, this event has a plethora of sources, but there are other points more important here. This does indeed have historic significance. The Superbowl is one of the most popular televised events in America, and this single play determined with certainty which team was going to the Superbowl in a game that had been close up to that point. That is a lasting effect there. The way it surprised and shocked people, it is guaranteed to be discussed for years to come. Already, notable writers and analysts are talking about it.
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards: This play has been reported in great depth in numerous sources throughout the country. There have been numerous articles written about that play alone as opposed to the entire game, and having sources about the subject itself as opposed to a parent subject that it is contained within is part of what makes something notable.Hellno2 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, you did not follow the Event advice of avoiding the rush to write the article immediately following the event, a concept also noted at WP:RECENTISM. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely dispute your "guarantee" that this will be "discussed for years to come." It was clearly a remarkable play, but...I dunno, should I create an article called, hmmmm, Kyle Williams' shin about the ball that bounced off of Kyle Williams that put the Giants back in their game? I just found an article about that play, too. Doesn't mean it's of "historic significance." I mean, it happened less than 48 hours ago. We're in no rush here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far more notable "plays" in other sports (e.g. the "Hand of God" in an association football World Cup knockout game by arguably the best player in the history of the game) don't get their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtellett (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weeell, that other articles don't exist doesn't mean this one couldn't: as a counterpart to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there's Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The "Hand of God" might well deserve its own article; currently Hand of God goal is a useful redirect. The argument for that article is easy to make: this is from a Google News search of recent news sources--on a goal from 1986. And this is from Google Books... Anyway, my point is, we don't have anything like that for this field goal. We may, in twenty years, though I doubt it. Oh, and Pele was the best player ever, of course. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There have been several "notable" events in games involving the New England Patriots, but none of them have their own pages. They are highlights, for sure, but they are not objectively historically significant. This is not the first time a kick has ever been missed, and will not be the last. As a matter of fact, this is merely the difference between being a "clutch kicker" and not being one - plenty of people fall into either category. In terms of "historical notability" as far as EVENT goes, that cannot be determined two days after the game. To do that requires time to pass to allow for objective contextualization. At present, this is a NOTNEWS item, as Ginseng notes, and the context of the other divisional game given there makes an excellent point. The play has been reported on in great depth because that's all there really is to report on, football-wise, until the Super Bowl starts. MSJapan (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everyone else above. Not notable, one-time event, unencyclopedic. Coverage in the game article is more thasn sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the kick was good, it would have only sent the game to overtime; arguably, the most controversial and notable play in that game happened two plays prior: Lee Evans has the winning TD in his hands and before he can plant two feet firmly on the ground as per NFL rules for a TD, he is already losing possession of the ball. It's a one-time event, had it happened in a vacuum or in any other game it wouldn't be given a second thought (reminder: The 2007 Miami Dolphins won their last game because of a blocked field goal and a run back for a TD. yes that is an example of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but it's a fair one I think. --Boston Burkenation (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Idea Perhaps changing this to being an article about the entire game, including all the information here. Championship games generally are notable. If at a later date, it is suitabe to do so, this could then be split into a separate article. Hellno2 (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - That still doesn't address BREAKING, and the divisionals are not the championship game, the Super Bowl is. Perhaps a really good example would be our English Premier League, World Cup, and Champions League. There are plenty of games between notable teams, and there may even be records set (most goals, most cards, etc.). However, we don't have articles on those individual games, because there is no way to show that every single one of those games over just the last 10 years is objectively notable; a section in the main season article gives the scoreline. The World Cup semis, which would ostensibly feature the four best teams in the world, don't get their own articles. Similarly, the AFC and NFC divisionals should not get articles, because they aren't all objectively notable. MSJapan (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is not a single article devoted to this game, there is an article about the 2011-12 NFL playoffs. The content for now can be merged there. It is all verifiable, so there is no reason why it wouldn't belong. It can be discussed from there whether or not it is worth separating it into another article.Hellno2 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cundiff could lose his job and that's a lasting effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.53.132 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC) - — 66.93.53.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Its already been stated hes not losing his job. (Ebann (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete "Wide Left" is a term maybe for Wiktionary. Using "Wide Left" to refer to a game is too ambiguous and certainly not widely used. Heck, to me, "Wide Left" refers to most any game involving the Kansas City Chiefs. Certainly the game could be notable, but having an article calling the game as such is... well... "wide left"--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning above. The title alone should not be used as justification for deleting. Had this article been titled differently, I wonder if it ever would have found its way to AFD. Hellno2 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons I'll expand on in a minute. As a side note, I saw this edit summary on my watchlist and came here expecting to see the real Wide Left up for deletion. Instead, it's a kick that happened this week? I'm disappointed. Anyway... If this was a BLP, we would have snow closed as WP:BLP1E. I realize, wait for it, that this isn't a BLP, but the idea remains the same. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event (or maybe just cover the single event?) ... we should generally avoid having an article on them." Sorry, but in today's sports-crazy world, there are hundreds of individual plays and events in every season that have major impacts (Peyton's neck has the sources to get the GA, if not higher) and are covered extensively by RS. That said, this fails EVENT so badly. Some of the material could be merged to the 2011–12 NFL playoffs, but its own article? No. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't have to read the article to know it should not be kept. Nothing truly special about the missed field goal, there are many field goals missed consistently in the NFL (including one of similar magnitude, by Morten Andersen). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This really was an incredible play, but I don't think it warrants an article. It should be mentioned in the relevant article, but I don't think it has received enough coverage for an article. I'm not sure a redirect is warranted either. (Delete) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (seeking compromise) I see that there is an overwhelming consensus to delete. As the creator, I am willing to compromise somewhere in the middle. Wikipedia guidelines do allow for content like this to be included, even if not in an article of its own. Let's discuss either a possible merge target or a way this article could be refocused (e.g. about the game, the Ravens or Pats season, etc.). Hellno2 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are already season articles for these teams (2011 Baltimore Ravens season and 2011 New England Patriots season) and this game isn't particularly notable enough to warrant its own article. Devote a couple sentences to each article, this article, and maybe this article, and that's about all that can be done. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with keeping most, and perhaps all, of the content, and you should be applauded for your interest in compromise :). It was a remarkable event (my wife is a Pats fan, and prior to the FG attempt I remember reassuring her that he might miss the kick, while not even remotely believing a word I was saying :), and it's not exactly like any facet of the event is unverifiable (which is the only real benchmark content needs to clear for inclusion). I think the playoffs article is the best target for the fullest merge. Shorter descriptions of the event ought to be included in the article suggestions that Eagles247 makes above. I'm happy to help with the merge if you need an assist. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged all the content from the article into 2011-12 NFL playoffs. I have not redirected the "wide left" title because the AFD is not closed yet, but I will gladly accept a redirect of that title, together with the edit history being preserved so in the event the subject is clearly notable enough for its own article, this last version can easily be dug up. The merged content in its place still needs a lot of cleanup, including rearrangement of paragraphs and removal of redundant content. Hellno2 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I said in my first comment, a merge is great (although not always the best move while the AfD is still running). However, I really don't think that this the most important 'wide left' on Wikipedia, and would have to oppose a redirect. Yes, I already gave away my bias above, but TBH, this is a WP:routine missed kick, and I don't see how a redirect is justified. Multiple examples have been given above of other wide lefts, and in the absence of the media actually calling it "wide left" I think this is an easy call. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, oppose a redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MAD. CallawayRox (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title "wide left" should not be deleted as a redirect per WP:R#KEEP reasons nos. 1 and 4. One is that it has a useful edit history. Even if this is not worthy of an article now, this play could be worthy of an article one day in the future, in which case, preserving the edit history would make recreation easier. Also there are numerous articles that link to the title "wide left" directly, and you do not want to create lots of red links in other articles. Hellno2 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted articles have a potentially useful history, and we don't even keep the ones that we know will eventually become notable (like movies and music written about before its finalized). Well, that's what "what links here" is for. Userfy it if you want, but a redirect really isn't a good choice. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MAD is probably a good option, and I won't oppose that on principle. But remind me--where are we merging this too? Drmies (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011-12 NFL playoffs is where the game summary is...and it looks like the content of Wide left has already been added there too. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No on in Baltimore refers to this play as "wide left" and I have yet to hear it in the national media either. It just seems like the writer is trying to force history to be something its not. Many other people have stared valid reasons but a few that I agree with highly are, Its no more notable than any other missed kick. yes it sent the Patriots to the Superbowl but so did the go-ahead QB sneak TD and the knocked out pass in the endzone right before the kick. Additionally Baltimore not scoring more points and allowing the Patriots to score more points was more a factor in the Ravens loss that one kick that would have only tied the game. (Ebann (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Keep in mind that as the creator, I am willing to accept the merge as a compromise, if the edit history and redirect are preserved. Presently, lots of articles link to this one via the title "wide left." The title is not associated with any other articles or redirects at the moment, but if that situation came about, it can b handled then. Per WP:R#KEEP nos. 1 and 4, that is how this situation should be handled. That along with the possibility of bringing it back into a standalone article should the siatuation warrant it in the future is all I'm asking for now. Hellno2 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to your "lots of articles link here" statement: If the links to this article are removed from {{Baltimore Ravens}} and {{New England Patriots}}, then there are four, count 'em, four articles in mainspace that will link here, and I will personally remove those links. I'm sorry, but we have many users above saying that what you are saying is not how this "should be handled". I don't really understand why you want the page history so bad, since almost all of the content has already been merged. Redirect is not necessary. Cheers, Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 05:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not news and shouldn't cover insignificant events - I really don't hear much about Cundiff's miss even a week later (let alone how it will probably be after the Super Bowl) and this game really does not have any more significance than any other conference championship game. But a missed field goal that potentially changes the outcome of the game is not that unusual. Possibly merge the content (not the title) into 2011 Baltimore Ravens season or even National Football League Lore. Frank Anchor^Talk 16:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible merge targets could include Billy Cundiff and 2011-12 NFL playoffs, but the game is not notable enough for its own page. Frank Anchor^Talk 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as required by WP:MAD and our licensing constraints. CallawayRox (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean to !vote "keep and redirect." Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noteworthy event in the history of the NFL, and especially the Ravens franchise.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-please read WP:NOTNEWS and explain how this play qualifies as have long-term significance. It's just another missed field goal. For the argument that it was notable because it determined the Super Bowl entrant, please remember that it means we would need to have an article on every single play in a pre-Super Bowl game, a ridiculous requirement. A412 (Talk * C) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just the fact that it determined who went into the super bowl; it is the reaction that it drew as well. The play may seem as routine as you want to call it. But the reaction has remained in the public eye for more than a week following, and there is a good chance it could linger for months or even years to come. NOTNEWS is a guideline against routine coverage, not a blanket policy against all news on Wikipedia. This play stands out, even among plays that determined which team went to the Super Bowl. Hellno2 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tebow-to-Demaryius Thomas pass probably received the same, if not more, "reaction" coverage than this play, to put things in perspective. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this does not bode well for any lasting coverage arguments. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no problem with there being an article on the 2012 AFC championship game, but there's not enough to warrant a separate article about this one play. Cbl62 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. It should be placed on NFL Lore section. 76.125.240.79 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin/others: Hellno merged the content into 2011-12 NFL playoffs on the 26th, and the section was removed by an IP on the 31st. If the decision is to merge, it will probably need to be truncated heavily at risk of complete removal. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin/others: Many of those who said "delete" here have treated this as this is an all-or-none issue when in reality, it is far from that. This is something that really belongs somewhere in the middle. I do believe that many would agree the content from this page at the very least belongs in another article; summaries of even regular season football games are normal. Also, preserving the edit history and making it readily accessible is important, since there is a chance this could be worthy of an article one day - we don't know yet; it is too soon to tell. One week is not enough time to resolve this issue - this could takes weeks or even months of discussion to determine, and in doing so, there is no deadline. If I had my way, this would be a keep, but obviously, this is not the case. But if I were the neutral admin closing this, I would make it a merge, keeping the edit history. Hellno2 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are a biased party with an invested interest in this article, how can you possibly propose a neutral close here? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Hellno, let's let the admin make the decision, instead of imagining how we would close it. You've made your point very clear (multiple times), and repeating our objections really hasn't done anything. No one is changing their mind. Let's go build the encyclopedia somewhere else. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Moreover, plenty of coverage already at 2011–12 NFL playoffs#Missed kick at end of game. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to 2011–12 NFL playoffs. Of course if this article is kept, it would be removed from there and replaced with the main tag. Hellno2 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on a technicality. First off, GNG (independent, reliable sources) is met here. Second, the event's existence is well-documented, and the primary complaint is the naming of the article. If that is a major concern, a move to something like Billy Cundiff's missed field goal kick in the 2012 AFC Championship Game (as unwieldly as it may be) may be more favorable. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up to JMyrle. It is possible that the title alone has prejudiced this discussion in favor of deletion, and if not for that, there would likely have been more keeps and fewer deletes, or this may have not even gone to AfD in the first place. AfD is not a vote, so even though the deletes far outnumber the keeps, that does not automatically mean it gets deleted. One option is to relist the AfD under a new title. Hellno2 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't going to happen, as many of the calls to delete cited other problems such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT concerns, along with the poorly-chosen title. Changing the title would not affect the other reasons for deletion raised. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never know. So far, the deletes outnumber the keeps 15-7. But AfD is not a vote, so that does not automatically mean delete. It is not a pure consensus. So far, policies and guidelines have been cited in favor of both outcomes, including these and others supporting going either way. This may end up either getting relisted or closed as no consensus. Hellno2 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really how it works. "Not a vote" means "not just a vote"; numbers are still taken into some consideration when closing an AfD, its just that it cannot be the primary decider. But barring fatally flawed editor arguments or overriding WP:BLP concerns, neither of which are applicable here, I'd say you're not going to get a keep or a relist out of a 2:1 situation. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:RS guidelines by far. Written like an encyclopedia article not like a news article, and sourced by more than just routine news coverage, so I cannot see it falling into WP:NOTNEWS. Stedrick (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there Stedrick. The reason those sources fall under WP:ROUTINE is that the sports industry has become so huge that virtually every game-changing play is likely to have been written about by a reliable source. However, those same plays are forgotten very quickly, thus showing a slant towards WP:Recentism. I have been watching Super Bowl coverage for a past few days now, and just a couple weeks later, there is little-to-no mention of this play as having a huge impact on that game. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:12, 2 February 2012 (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.