Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeflateGate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per WP:SNOW. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeflateGate

[edit]
DeflateGate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wp:NOTNEWS. The relevant information should be trimmed and moved to 2014 New England Patriots season. I tried myself but was reverted. -- Calidum 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into the 2014 season article. While this is a notable event right now, it isn't notable enough until the investigation is complete, someone is guilty and a punishment is handed down. Otherwise it is much ado about nothing in a game they would have won whether the balls were deflated or not. A standalone may be due in the future but it isn't sure how long it will take for this to reach an official closing. Should be summarized as well per nom, reads like a ticker now.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, what? You admit the event is notable—just not "notable enough". First, the general notability criteria is: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...." I would need an explanation of how the article does not meet this criteria to buy your argument. Oh, and remember that notability is not temporary. -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I don't believe the situation is notable to warrant a stand-alone article at this point. By "...this is a notable event right now...", I was referring to the developing situation that is blanketing TV and radio in the U.S. This is good fodder for the news, who likes to speculate especially when the Super Bowl is a week away. We shouldn't be giving undue notability to a situation we can't predict the outcome of or cause behind. This is an encyclopedia. Notability may not be temporary but a subject has to reach the 'threshold' first. Also, as WP:GNG states, "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not,...". That's why were having this discussion.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree/explain: Please explain in detail how the event fails NOTNEWS. The article is not being used as a primary source, this is not a routine event within its own field, the article is not dedicated to a peripheral character—it is the central event, and the article is not a diary of miniscule minute-by-minute coverage. So I fail to see your reasoning. -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Spygate has its own article, as did Bountygate, and DeflateGate is shaping up to be a similar sort of scandal with similar repercussions. At very least I'd wait until after the SB to see what (if any) punishments are handed down on the Patriots. If it is comparable to either Spygate or Bountygate that would strongly suggest a keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CRYSTAL involves speculation on future events. This event has already happened and the consequences are unfolding. Perhaps the event does not meet the notability threshold, but I fail to see the relevance of CRYSTAL. -- Veggies (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If stuff like the Ray Rice incident or the Cowboys/Redskins salary cap incidents warranted pages, then someone should create them. Just because one notable event doesn't have a page, it doesn't follow that a notable event that has a page is suddenly not notable.Infinity Project (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. Take a look at WP:Notability#Notability is not temporary; specifically, the last sentence of that section. A brief burst of news coverage doesn't indicate notability. News coverage can be an indicator of notability, but it's not the deciding factor. Lots of celebrity-related issues get extensive coverage, for example, but very few are noteworthy enough to warrant their own article.-RHM22 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, what makes you think this is a "brief burst" of coverage when the end of the coverage (that which defines the brevity) has not come? Second, nominating or agreeing that an article should be deleted places the burden of proof on the nominee or supporter. I haven't read any argument here that I haven't disputed on its validity. -- Veggies (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As absurd as I think the whole "controversy" is, this topic is covered on all major sports news outlets and even on mainstream news outlets. Searching for Defaltegate shows hits on NBCSports.com, ABC News, SI, CNN, NY Post, USA Today, Time, CBS Sports. I think this easily passes WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article should have it's own page, the NFL Spygate and Bountgate scandal do, and as do all other Gate scandals in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. To delete this or merge it into a wider topic would be against the standards set for other Gate scandals, including those in the NFL. Also, it IS a big news story in the USA, and it's also news in the UK as well, where there's very little NFL news coverage [1] Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect too soon. It may well go beyond current news, but we're not there yet. Open to it being created in the future. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What exactly (policy-wise) do you cite to oppose the article's stand-alone existence? Because I'm not sure how something can be "too soon" after it's happened. -- Veggies (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is something called WP:TOOSOON but it generally speaks to pre-coverage of future events. This has already happened. so I don't see how that applies. As to the point about "have we passed the point where it is notable" -- that's the purpose of this discussion. To just say "it's not here yet" is not really an argument. Please, why is it not "there" yet? (you may be right, but I can't agree with just a statement without reasoning).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created the original redirects that previously pointed to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Sports, fully expecting this would become an article in the near future after more press coverage had become available. It's clear this is a serious, major news item. The question of it passing WP:NOTNEWS seems clear to me; that guideline notes we consider "the enduring notability of ... events". There's little question this will have enduring notability; witness Spygate. Witness the bounty scandal. Most importantly, witness the >5 million hits for "deflategate" in Google News [2]. This story is absolutely huge, not a minor hiccough in the 2014-15 NFL season. It doesn't matter what deflategate becomes or doesn't become in the future at this point. It doesn't mater what the penalties may or may not be. It is huge now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a huge issue and is superseding any and all discussion about the actual game that is going to be played. (Seriously, has anyone seen or heard any analysis about the game? They are going to play the game, right?). I suppose this could wind up blowing over, but there is no reason to assume it will, considering that the nonstop coverage continues to not stop. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep far surpasses the general notability guideline. The WP:NOTNEWS issue is irrelevant in this case: yes it is a current event, a recent event, but it is also a notable event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BALLGHAZI. LOL. OK, the issue deserves coverage somewhere. If this isn't kept, it should be maintained as a redirect.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. We don't know if this is just rumours or not. In any case, it's a borderline WP:CRYSTAL problem given the lack of definitive proof of something actually happening. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't a temporary thing that will go away and be forgotten in a few days, any more than Spygate. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep things like bounty-gate are talked about and referenced to forever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry, but this passes as noatable, it's already being talked about more than the super bowl (the expected topic of conversation at this time of year), it involves a team that has already been involved in various other "gate" scandals, and as a coverup has become glaringly obvious, this will have major repercussions in the league. My feeling is that most people voting delete are not fans of American Football and simply don't realize just how big this is. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The volume of news coverage makes it clearly notable. One off-beat example: Deflategate is a significant topic of discussion at the website of National Review, a magazine about American politics -- not a sports magazine or a general news magazine. [3] — Lawrence King (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage is frankly a little over-inflated, and should probably have a pin stuck in it, the google hits have ballooned, stretched and distended from 5 million to 6 million hits since the afd was puffed open, and this thing is still blowing up. Ballghazi has become one of the most overblown football controversies in a long while, and there is ample coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Don't let the air out of this one. Cbl62 (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, nice I count 7 puns in your 3 short sentences... -War wizard90 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Notability is not temporary" is being turned on its head. It actually says once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. There can be no question that the coverage of this event has been signficant. Also, it isn't WP trying to do journalism; it's summary and explanation of what reliable news sources say, same as any other current event. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This event is equivalent in propensity to 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy, and is already covered in multiple reliable sources. If this article is not kept, it should, at a minimum, be merged into 2014 New England Patriots season. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's quite notable, and not a mere side trip on the 2014 season; on Boston sports-talk radio, it is crowding out all other topics. I bet it's the main angle on the Super Bowl nationwide in the two-week build-up to the event, including discussion of whether the league wants the controversy, wants it now, and is artificially prolonging it. I came to WP (going straight to the redirect at "Deflate-gate") to see if there were angles I had missed; the assertion that D'Qwell Jackson did not notice anything strange about the ball he intercepted was news to me. I plan to return to the article to read a summary of emerging forensic details. Needs an unbiased mention of predisposition against Belichick based on the Spygate transgression. Echoing Lawrence King above, it is not just being discussed outside sports media, it is being set against current events in Arabia by Limbaugh and Levin to debate U.S. values and engagement. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to mention, over the last 4 days this page has received an average of 4,087 page views per day! -War wizard90 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The amount of coverage the scandal is getting justifies an article. Several unusual things happened, which is why journalists are flocking to it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The idea this should be deleted is farcical on its face. If you want to merge it, then use the merge tag. Which would also get turned down, but isn't absurd. 66.87.67.78 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article gives accurate, properly sourced information about an event, and a significant number of visitors have been reading the article to learn this information, but Wikipedia's policy still wanted the article deleted (which I doubt), then the policy, not the article, would be the problem. Tbtkorg (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. For those who are supporting deletion and have quoted WP:CRYSTAL, it works both ways: We currently do not know whether in the future this actually erupts into a real scandal (thus historically significant), or it is merely a false positive. It is only after it is finally resolves that can we have a more in-depth discussion on whether it was historically significant or just WP:NOTNEWS. Deleting it now and then finding out later that it was actually significant is not productive. Better to err on keeping it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - A number of editors above are relying on the volume of significant coverage in the last week to establish the notability of this purported "scandal"; that analysis is only partially correct. Per WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, not only must a subject event receive significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, but news events must also establish their enduring notability; that does not typically happen in the space of a week. Specifically, WP:NOTNEWS states in relevant part:
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. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.
Furthermore, WP:EVENT also states several criteria to consider in evaluating the notability of a recent news event, specifically:
1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
2. 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 (as described below).
3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
Having set forth the correct standards to evaluate the notability and suitability of this event for inclusion as a stand-alone article, I am now going to hedge, and say that I believe, but I cannot say with 100% certainty, that Inflategate will have "enduring notability". Given the volume of significant coverage to date, the high-profile nature of the NFL, the Super Bowl, the New England Patriots, and quarterback Tom Brady, I believe that this "scandal" will have significant legs to establish its enduring notability per the applicable criteria. If Brady and the Patriots are exonerated, and no one is talking about this event in 90 days, we may revisit this issue via a 2nd AfD and/or a possible merge at that time. In the mean time, let's source the article properly with mainstream reliable source footnotes per WP:V and WP:RS, try to maintain a neutral point of view and encyclopedic tone per WP:NPOV, and not clutter the article with extraneous factoids and trivia per WP:UNDUE. This topic can be properly treated in about 500 words of straightforward, factually stated main body text; let's not create text that restates redundant coverage of the NFL, Super Bowl, AFC playoffs, New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, and the history of prior alleged cheating scandals in the NFL and pro sports generally. Focus. Please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional redirect to 2014–15_NFL_playoffs#AFC_Championship_Game:_New_England_Patriots_45.2C_Indianapolis_Colts_7; I agree with Dirtlawyer1 on basically all points. Whether this survives as an article really depends on the outcome. I think if the Patriots are found to have systematically and intentionally underinflated balls, then this article will have sufficient content for a stand-alone article; but if they escape sanction, or are sanctioned but not found to have underinflated balls deliberately, then the whole thing can probably best be described in a single paragraph. Most of this article is padding anyway, including a thorough recap of the game which is already and more appropriately covered in the location to which I propose a redirect. Aspirex (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't care either way, but this thing happens all the time here. Some minor event is blown out of proportion by the media. Someone creates a Wikipedia article for it, and it's quickly put up for deletion and gets some initial delete votes. But as the coverage ramps up, everyone appears and votes keep, after all, it may be insignificant and the article may be destined to be no more than an over-detailed stub, but look at all of the coverage! The article is kept, and because it overwhelmingly survived an afd it is guaranteed a long life. Maybe Wikipedia needs to adopt a one month policy for afds on current events, then we can see where it stands. I can guarantee you that in a month (or, more accurately, once the SuperBowl is over) this event will mostly be forgotten and will seem a lot less major. -- Scorpion0422 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response then it can be re-nominated for deletion at that time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you ever tried nominating something for deletion within a year of an afd? If someone did put it up in a month, it would be crowded with "Speedy keep. There was an afd last month" comments. -- Scorpion0422 01:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think great care needs to be taken here. It could come down to physics and not foul-play which would counter-act the significance and weight of this 'gate'. Yes, I know that professor is probably a Patriots fan... --NortyNort (Holla) 02:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe that "Consensus will be to keep it so we should delete it" is a valid reason to delete an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did I say that? No. You missed my point entirely, so here it is in simple terms: There should be a rule preventing afds of an article on a current event within a month of it happening. Whoever nominated this should have known it would be kept because it's a current event getting headline coverage so it SEEMS more important than it is. In a month, we would have a good feel for the actual notability of the event and could make an objective decision as to whether the article can stand on its own or should be merged elsewhere (personally, I think an article for the game itself would make more sense, but I don't care either way). But because this afd happened, we can't do that. Any afd for the next while will end in a snowball keep. -- Scorpion0422 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yep, that's what you said. FYI, articles do get deleted the second or third time through AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think your proposal is a good idea on its face, but then we'd encounter problems when people create a nonsense article about an obviously minor event (but maybe not obvious enough for speedy delete), but no one could nominate it for deletion for a month. It would have the opposite effect in that case.-RHM22 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much as I hate this story and feel like it's getting way too much attention (and my gut feeling the NFL's not actually going to do anything), this story has been getting a lot of coverage and it is influencing how people feel about the New England Patriots organization as a whole. I think this incident will be well remembered.Infinity Project (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or maybe, at least, merge with a redirect. In any case, I think it's useful to have a place where people can go to to find out "what the heck is this" about events creating media hoopla. The very fact that it's caused a media hoopla seems to indicate some sort of historical value. I appreciate the fact that there's an article here, so that there's somewhere I can go to that's not a news site and isn't written as if I already know what the event is all about, and require me to dig through dozens of past media articles and little snippety updates to find out what the heck they are talking about. This wiki article is serving an important encyclopedic purpose by simply being a reference that one can look to to get a better overview of a topic that's causing a cultural stir, no matter how inane it may be. AaronW from ABQ (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DeflateGate&oldid=1140116346"