Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game

493:

days after it was played? Have books been written about it? Is the game still generating meaningful commentary in blogs seven months after it was played? Every reliable source article about the game which I have found was written in the two days following the game date. No reliable source articles of substance were generated even a week after it was played, no critical commentary was generated that puts the game in a historical perspective or assigns the game special significance to the sport of football or even in the context of the Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry. As for the game itself—was there some notable innovation that occurred in the game? First time that electrical lighting was used for a college football game? Did the game determine the outcome of the national championship? First time a college football team employed the forward pass? As best I can tell, the post-game media coverage simply recited the facts of the game, the very definition of the word "routine." If we are to accept that this game is notable based on the AP and ESPN coverage as indicative of its notability per

1502:) per Dirtlawyer1. It definitely feels like Recentism and I would question the games lasting impact on anything outside the Michigan Wolverine football program, and even that is questionable at this point. I don't think it is particularly notable from Notre Dame's perspective, either. If we come back and revisit this topic in two or three years and there are articles still being written about the game and its impact (not just references fact lights were used at a Michigan home football game for the first time), then we can perhaps reexamine it. However, I suspect that those articles will not happen. Further, the use of lights just for Michigan is not sufficiently notable to college football in general. In contrast, an article about the first use of lights in college football history might be. IMO, this game does not live up to any such sort of notability. 2344:"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 or the Blood in the Water match) Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." I have shown this game has recived more then routine coverage a regular season game being ranked in top 52 of all games in all sports is far from routine. Also all the rewards received becuase of this made it far from routine. Setting a NCAA record is not routine either. It is 3 or 4 months after the season ended. I am sure there will be more as writers are mentioning this games NCAA record, that it was "Under the Lights" and the last second come from behind win anytime they get chance to. 1144:. In fairness to David and the other "keep" votes, a dramatic ending may contribute to a game's notability, but the notability of the game will ultimately be determined by the nature of the media coverage the game receives. Routine post-game coverage in the media is not enough; the coverage should emphasize the larger significance of game in a larger context. Continuing coverage after the fact indicates greater significance and probable Knowledge (XXG) notability. That's what WP:NEWSEVENT is all about. Case in point, I do seem to remember several notable Florida State–Miami games whose claim to legendary status rests on a game-ending failed field goal (or two). And, yes, people still talk about and write about those FSU–UM games years later, meaning that they are probably notable for Knowledge (XXG) purposes. 1239:. Bagumba, I hope no one is in a rush to close this AfD, either way. This is a discussion that the WP:NFL and WP:CFB projects really need to have regarding the characteristics of individual regular season games that make them notable, and I, for one, would really like to see all of the regular project editors participate. At some point in the near future, I think we probably need to codify the notability guidelines applicable to individual football games in a single place, or at least have all of the applicable guidelines cross-referenced to a single place. In any event, the two football projects need to firm up the applicable single-game precedents in a CFB and NFL context, so that we have a stable consensus going forward regarding what makes an individual regular season game notable. IMHO, of course. 2937:. Regretfully, despite the best efforts of several editors to rescue this article from the notability concerns outlined above, I must say that I have not seen anything in the way of substantial commentary on the greater significance of this game to college football. To the extent continuing coverage exists over the seven months since the game was played, virtually all of it appears to be trivial in nature—a sentence here, a sentence there. No serious analysis, no in-depth commentary. At this point, I think we should begin thinking about how we incorporate the salvageable parts of this article into the stand-alone Knowledge (XXG) articles for the 2011 FBS college football season, the Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry, Michigan Stadium, and Michigan Wolverines football. 2677:. Consider that the sources that are being used are routine coverage. While they are continuing coverage in a sense, they are all routine "end of the year" of "best of 2011" articles. Sportswriters write these articles on a yearly basis to recap the season. Moreover, none of these articles rate the game as the most important game of the year and are trivial recaps of the game. One article used cites the game as the 36th best game of the year... not exactly important. None of the sources point to the game as important in a historical context. There is no coverage that reaches "game of the century" discussion or that discusses the impact of the game on the sport. 771:

meaning, impact, effect, significance, etc. The notability standard applicable to news events is a very different standard than that applicable to people. Again, meeting the general notability standards per WP:GNG is necessary, but it is not enough. To be notable for Knowledge (XXG) purposes, a news event must also satisfy the requirements of WP:NEWSEVENT, of which WP:ROUTINE is only one part. And, yes, to be perfectly clear, I do believe that the sports media coverage of this game was "routine" per WP:ROUTINE. Again, the fact that there was a lot detailed routine coverage is irrelevant under WP:NEWSEVENT.

2230:

significance. Does an attendance record rise to that level? Maybe, maybe not, but if the game also received continuing coverage it would be far less of a judgment call, and I would certainly lean toward deeming the game notable. Personally, I think it would be more helpful in this AfD, and in formulating better notability guidelines for individual games, if everyone would focus on what the ideal guidelines should be, and not finding a way to squeeze this article under the wire or reject it. This AfD is an example of a much broader notability problem involving single games.

505:, then virtually every NFL game is notable, most Michigan and Notre Dame football games are notable, and so are the majority of football games played by Alabama, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Miami, Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas and USC and a lot of other teams. Frankly, that would be absurd. Knowledge (XXG) would be swallowed by single-game professional and college sports articles. Even football almanacs don't carry that kind of game-specific coverage, and Knowledge (XXG) is not a sports almanac. 600:

had no enduring historical significance or lasting effect, and it received no meaningful post-game analysis that put the game into a long-term perspective within American history and culture, or even the sport of college football. It was a news event, pure and simple. "Routine" does not necessarily imply a one-paragraph wire article and box score. The fact that there were lots of detailed articles written immediately after the game was played is largely irrelevant per

2313:

especially includes volunteer fan blogs such as bleacherreport.com. The Fox Sports series of online photos and captions of the top 10 games of 2011 is borderline trivial and includes no real commentary about the significance of the game. I also note that of the top 10 games cited in the photo montage, only one of the other nine has a standalone Knowledge (XXG) article—the regular season Alabama–LSU matchup that set the stage for the BCS Championship Game.

1952:

satisfies WP:GNG. The record-setting 2007 Navy and Weber State games are most probably notable under one or more of the several suggested rationales. That being said, I'm not sure if buy the argument that the largest home crowd rises to the same level as the longest game (seven overtimes) or the all-time high-scoring Division I game. Ultimately, it depends not on whether a record set, but on the nature of the media coverage that the game received.

1323:

ESPN televises one nearly every Thursday and Saturday night. The fact this night game is made a big deal comes from the Michigan athletics website in order to sell tickets and merchandise. Not due to any historic significance to the overall game of college football. I have yet to see any independent sources discussing the game in a historic context and like others have said, few if any articles outside the few days before and after the event.

1116:. User:Davidfreesefan23: a dramatic ending doesn't mean much, in today's sports world (see the Wide left example). Now, if we had an article written after the fact about the "symbolic rebirth of a storied program that had recently fallen on hard times" this discussion might be different...but that is OR-ish and irrelevant right now. The content can obviously go into the related season articles, but a separate article isn't needed. 1929:

attendance is something manufactured and manipulated by the size of the stadium and a university's marketing department, as well as how many bodies a university is willing to allow into a stadium. It has nothing to do with the actual game play of the athletes and the coaches (forgive me if this takes the conversation in a completely different direction, but perhaps this should be a criteria for notability?).

1173:". Nowadays there are likely to be any number of spectacular, game-ending/-winning plays (watch SportsCenter's Top 10 on a Monday morning) and the sheer number means that each individual one is less likely to have lasting coverage/notability. I wasn't around for the first FSU-UM games you reference, but I've always gotten the impression that the lower overall sports coverage -- though higher 2790:- A quick Google search shows literally hundreds of news articles from the past month (March-April, 2012) that reference the game. This "Under the Lights" game is being held again this year, which seems to be another example of why this game was noteworthy. This article from April 8th, 2012 lists the match-up as Michigan's "Game of the Year" award for 2011, calling it a "classic." 1924:

you use aren't exactly the best examples of a Knowledge (XXG) article. Do you see the difference between the examples you found and the examples Dirtlawyer1 provided in terms of the sheer amount of citations that cover a long time span? (If any thing we might consider moving forward deletion on the examples you provided as well). Looking at the stats on

672:. Have you read the rest of WP:NEWSEVENT, a large portion of which I have quoted above? When discussing any news event, including sports matches, the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG are not the final word; the requirements and guidelines of WP:NEWSEVENT are. In addition to satisfying the general requirements of WP:GNG, WP:NEWSEVENT also asks: 2884:) references the game and says "it will be tough to top that event." Other examples include 18 March 2012 articles in the South Bend Tribune and Detroit Free Press, and a 16 March 2012 article from Rant Sports includes a picture from the game and states "last year’s contest in Ann Arbor was a classic" and gives an overview of the game: 477:, the word "routine" is defined as follows: "n. 1. A prescribed, detailed course of action to be followed regularly; a standard procedure. 2. A set of customary and often mechanically performed procedures or activities. See synonym at method. 3. A set piece of entertainment adj. 1. In accord with established procedure; 2339:

says "For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable

1951:

describes how a news event might achieve notability, including "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline." Continuing coverage is one of the other several possible indicia of notability when combined with media coverage that

1923:

A couple of thoughts. First, it feels like those who want to keep the article are searching for the game's significance. Initially it was because it was Michigan's first night game. Now it is record attendance. It should be obvious from the start why the game is important. Secondly, the two examples

1470:

I added a post game section about all the awards received because of this game Big Ten named Denard Robinson its Offensive Player of the Week, while the Davey O'Brien Award named him its Quarterback of the Week. He was also named Rivals.com's Big Ten and National Player of the Week and was nominated

1344:

There are many sources that talk about the historic significance of this game months before it was even played most games do not get singled out and wrote about like this has. I added 3 or 4 of them to the refs on this article if you do a google search for "Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game Sept

838:

per Dirtlawyer1. The most damning aspect in his argument is the fact that all of the sources were written within two or three days of the event. This game has no lasting impact on either program and will not be discussed in depth as a meaningful game even three years from now. Contrary to what a lot

633:

might be better). I see two sections in there that directly apply: 1) "...sports scores .. and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." 2) "Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article, if

599:

Sorry, but based on the comments so far and my own review of the post-game coverage, I just don't see why this game would be considered notable enough to have a stand-alone Knowledge (XXG) article. The 2011 Michigan–Notre Dame game received standard post-game sports coverage in the sports media; it

492:

Can anyone tell me what is unusual, special, extraordinary, or non-routine about the media coverage of this game? The game was played seven months ago; are sports reporters and columnists still writing about it? Are ESPN anchors still talking about it? Were they still writing about it even seven

2229:

again, and try to grasp the bigger picture. Once the event has achieved a certain measure of media coverage that nominally satisfies WP:GNG, what WP:NEWSEVENT is trying to get at, conceptually, is whether the event has some longer-term significance. A significant record might be that longer term

1928:

for Michigan Stadium, attendance is being broken several times each year according to the article. One could argue these are hardly momentous achievements, if they are broken on a regular basis (perhaps routine?). Where are the articles on those games if record attendance is so important? Finally,

1693:

articles and should be. It was the 1st night game at the big house. There was 4 or 5 awards given to Michigan and a player of theirs because of their performance in this game. It also set a NCAA attendance record of 114,804 for NCAA football games. It was one of the biggest comebacks in histroy of

1322:

Aside from the lasting coverage debate, I believe the basis of a first night game to denote notability is a stretch. One could argue that a night game, in any stadium regardless of size, in the 21st century is routine. The NFL plays one every Sunday and Monday Night (and sometimes Thursdays!), and

366:

is finished. And that doesn't even include the section on the game on the rivalry page. The actual game page asserts its importance without zero evidence to suggest its significance past the fact that the game happened and it was covered by multiple media outlets, just like both you and Eagle 24/7

2709:

The article that ranked it the 36th best game of the year included all games and sports events, Golf (the Masters), NASCAR, Tennis (Grand Slams), NFL (Super Bowl) , NBA (playoffs), MLB, NCAA (Basketball), and alot more. So 36th for a Regular Season game is important. It was also ranked above many

2013:

And, Bagumba, let's play this absolutely straight and say that if were 100% clear that this game were non-notable under the applicable guidelines, then the !vote would be more lopsided than it is. My concern in this discussion is not this article, but that we clarify the notability standards for

1994:

Re: Theworm777, specific bowl bowl games are likely to be discussed in future games in that bowl series, or years later in the history of the respective schools. Many records on the other hand, receive only trivial if any future coverage. If the coverage does exist, the record itself would be the

770:

Those are the critical questions to be asked, my friend. We are way past whether the amount of post-game media coverage generated satisfies WP:GNG. There's plenty of coverage, but subject news events may satisfy WP:GNG and still be excluded as non-notable because they lack significant long-term

2312:

Worm777, I appreciate your efforts in better sourcing the article and trying to satisfy the admittedly tough standards for the notability of regular season football games. That having been said, blogs are not considered to be reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability, and that

2185:

as it was the first played in Tuscaloosa since 1901. Are these important in the realm of Alabama football, yes. However in the greater context of college football as a whole, not so much. Furthermore, if a player is recognized as being "player of the week" in a particular game is it not more

385:

I'm not suggesting it. I'm not going to do it. But if someone else wants to, and there's enough "meat" in the media to back them up for any given game, then I wouldn't stop them. Especially for the kind of coverage that this game has received. It is way past a routine listing of sports

839:

of editors on Knowledge (XXG) think, GNG does not allow articles to be kept carte blanche. It's why more specific guidelines exist, such as ONEEVENT – for cases like this. I should note that I don't think this game even passes GNG, so don't misinterpret what I mean by that.

814:

Yes, the fact it was a called an "Instant Classic", Set a NCAA attendance record, was given 5 awards, was the 1st night game there,and it had a great comeback with the winning team scoring with just 2 seconds left made this more then a regular game and gave it "enduring

1445:

Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game Sept 10, 2011" You get that same Michigan Daily article, and the the next two results are Knowledge (XXG) articles on Michigan Stadium and the rivalry! The results are either routine coverage, videos, or Knowledge (XXG) articles.

858:

It had a very dramatic ending and garnered a lot of attention for being the first night game at the Big House (heck, College GameDay was even there!) It also signaled the symbolic rebirth of a storied program that had recently fallen on hard times (much like the

587:"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 2534:

I suppose that the information in this article could be merged into all of the areas where this topic is covered (e.g., team pages, rivalry page, etc.). There just isn't enough continuing coverage from a historical perspective to warrant its own article.

634:

at all." The first one to me seems to say that (my quotes) "A box score does not an article make" and the second one leaves an opening for events to either have their own article or be in a group. Since there is enough coverage of this event to clear

529:, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. 2014:

individual regular season games. Personally, I think this game is closer to a "delete" than a "keep," but there are credible arguments for keeping it. Again, it's not 100%, and there is an element of subjectivity in the applicable guidelines.

1078:. Willing to reconsider if supporters to keep can provide sources that demonstrate continued coverage alluding to significance of first night game at Michigan Stadium. If that shown to be the claim to fame, details of the actual game have 154: 189:, 2. the article is not sufficiently sourced, sources that do exist are from an official athletics website (which serves to promote the event), not an independent, nuetral third party that verifies notability; 3. content is already covered 607:

I will wait to hear the comments of Paul and others, but unless someone comes up with a better argument than the game got a lot of media coverage on the Sunday and Monday after it was played, I am strongly leaning toward a "delete" vote.

3021:

Both SDCSports.com and Bloguin.com are non-professional fan blogs, like BleacherReport.com mentioned above, and are therefore not considered to be a reliable source for purposes of establishing notability for Knowledge (XXG) articles.

1436:

mentions the game as historic outside the weekend of coverage, a local article from The Michigan Daily. The coverage is more about the announcement rather than the game itself and occurs before the game. The 5th search result is the

2959:) "September 10, 2011 was a special night in Ann Arbor, Michigan and in the college football world... with long-time season-ticket holders consistently describing the crowd and the game as the best they have ever experienced." 2224:

Worm, keep in mind that the fact that a record was set in a given game is not determinative in determining notability. Ultimately, the nature of the media coverage that the event received is your best argument. Take a look at

1812:

This game is certainly a notch below those games in terms of notability. I just don't think it is a run-of-the mill game. I think the first night game at the largest stadium is almost like the first night game at Wrigley or

2845:

is the student newspaper of the University of Michigan, and is therefore not considered to be a "independent of the subject" in order to be a reliable source for purposes of establishing notability for Knowledge (XXG) per

2404:

to this page. Should all 4 of the pages this is split from have all this info on them or should it be left as it is to 1 verifiable and well sourced article? I have added many sources since this was put up for deletion.

1716:

coverage at least a few days after the game. Nearly every FBS college football game receives the same amount of coverage immediately after games. Not all of them are notable enough to warrant individual articles.

976: 1258: 2562: 2452: 979:). The largest crowd at any sporting event in the US (possibly in the world) is the Indianapolis 500, which regularly draws more than 260,000 spectators, with the Associated Press estimating 400,000 in 1990. 361:

you will see that there is already a lengthy section on the game, which I believe is the appropriate to that article and its purpose. Also consider that the game will essentially be covered twice, once the

508:

That is not the standard of notability for individual games played by college and professional sports teams, however. Championship games, including college bowl games, have a presumption of notability per

1112:? Same content type, same arguments, and what I think should be the same result. Dirtlawyer outlines this very well: the game, although 'notable', has nothing more then routine coverage and so fails 88: 83: 802:

Yes, Because of this game Michigan won team of the week awards and Denard Robinson won Rivals.com's Big Ten and National Player of the Week and won the Capital One Cup Impact Performance of the Week

148: 92: 1177:

dedicated to that game -- contributed to those games' fame. Instead of that, we often have multiple articles, blogs and recaps of games....all published within 48 hours. After that, very little.

1405:

Thanks. The sources added deal mainly with the significance of the first night game. If there is no significant coverage after the game occurred, I see no reason for a standalone coverage when

604:. The game received routine sports media coverage, and after the 2011 season was over, the game was already forgotten by everyone except the teams and fans of the respective schools involved. 75: 2098:

because they historically do have continued coverage and/or historical significance. There is no similar presumption for NCAA records. Note that even if the articles is deleted, it can be

2862:. This also excludes press releases, media guides, online news articles or other promotional materials produced by the UM athletic department or the university public relations team. 1471:

for the Capital One Cup Impact Performance of the Week, which he won by fan vote. I think this makes it more then a normal event also. I will vote latter after there is more discussion

2340:

sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline)." and at

2498:

I did not "only citing the raw number of search hits" like you said I did. I showed 4 links to Continuing coverage of this game and mean there is 1000s more pages to check for more.

1905:

Continued coverage is not required for everything. No games not even Bowl games have continued coverage. These games have lasting significance because they set NCAA records.

1430:- I googled what you asked. The results prove exactly what Dirtlawyer1 and Bagumba argue previously. It has lots of coverage on and around the day it happened. This article 115: 1862: 537:

may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Knowledge (XXG) article.

517:, but that is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Regular season games are news events and must ALSO satisfy the specific news event notability requirements of 277: 2267: 2454:

on Dec 26, 2011. Like it was in the other articles I have linked above. There is 1.6 million results if you search for first night game at michigan stadium .

3004: 1690: 1528: 363: 2644:

The game probably should get a little more treatment on the rivalry page from a historic perspective, but a detailed account of the game would trend toward

1431: 1109: 1011:

That figure is unofficial and not recognized because Michigan has something like the top 10 attendance figures of all time at about 10,000 less than that.--

1970:

Dirtlawyer1, I'm generally in agreement. I didnt choose to look at those articles, so I prefaced my comments with "might" and mainly wanted to point out

1787: 860: 169: 2858:. Specifically, the general notability guideline states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject" per 2327:

RE:Dirtlawyer1 This game was far from a routine regular season game and has enough continued coverage and reliable sources from sites like Fox sports,

565:"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, 136: 2605: 2055: 1694:

Michigan Wolverines football. The amount of post-game media coverage generated satisfies WP:GNG. There's plenty of coverage as Dirtlawyer1 has said.

1783: 357:

Paul, I hope you are not seriously suggesting people start doing single game articles for every game. This is why the season pages exist. If you go

219:

for inclusion of this article. I'll grant that they should be added to the article, but that is a content/editing issue and not a deletion issue.--

2669:- Wondering where the AFD stands. I commend TheWorm77 for finding sources for the article, but I still believe with sources, the article violates 2270: 1854: 3049: 3031: 3016: 2974: 2946: 2903: 2871: 2809: 2782: 2744: 2719: 2702: 2686: 2657: 2635: 2576: 2550: 2525: 2507: 2489: 2463: 2439: 2414: 2389: 2353: 2322: 2303: 2281: 2257: 2239: 2215: 2195: 2149: 2127: 2111: 2071: 2045: 2023: 2004: 1983: 1961: 1938: 1914: 1896: 1878: 1840: 1803: 1773: 1737: 1703: 1669: 1647: 1626: 1570: 1551: 1511: 1480: 1455: 1422: 1394: 1354: 1332: 1304: 1282: 1248: 1227: 1193: 1153: 1132: 1091: 1053: 1038: 1006: 988: 966: 937: 872: 848: 824: 780: 651: 617: 464: 437: 419: 395: 380: 348: 330: 292: 261: 228: 206: 57: 1682: 1524: 1499: 1211: 892: 358: 190: 2248:

If a game had non-trivial mention years or at least weeks afterwards from multiple independent sources, I would deem it likely to be notable.—

2206:

Those games that were deleted did not set a NCAA record like these did. It was not just a player who was recognized the whole team was also.

367:

illustrate. The original author even states that he thinks its important, but has yet to provide third party coverage saying it is. Consider

1292: 578:"Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. 130: 2885: 2881: 2794:

There are many more examples of recent articles that reference this game, therefore indicating that it meets notability requirements.

2791: 3066: 2992: 2921: 2827: 1434: 126: 2618: 1823: 1791: 1756: 1377: 1021: 920: 863:

did back in Bo Schembechler's time). I'm sure Michigan fans will be looking back on it and talking about it many years in the future.

368: 2561:

Its not "ROUTINE" when at the end of December 2011 this game was rated 3rd best regular season game of the year on msn.foxsports.com

2426:

says not to split articles when the resulting article is not notable, which is the case here without identified continued coverage.

79: 17: 3062: 3041: 3008: 2988: 2966: 2917: 2895: 2823: 2801: 2775: 1712:

You have missed Dirtlawyer1's point completely. Obviously there is coverage in the media of this game, but, as he says, not enough

2186:

appropriate to note that in either the season or their individual player article rather than creating one for an individual game?

2174: 533:, that differ from the criteria used by Knowledge (XXG) and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other 176: 2622: 1827: 1760: 1547: 1381: 1025: 924: 513:. Regular season games do not. Yes, regular season games may be notable if they satisfy the general notability requirements of 406:

Note that Paul's sources from ESPN.com and CBSSports.com are the same Associated Press article. Moreover, this does seems to be

2670: 2173:. Simply keeping because the game was the first night game at the Big House would be like making articles for games such as the 1850: 186: 71: 63: 2740: 1732: 1409:

already covers this night game. The details on the game itself—not coverage on the logistics and significance of a night game—

1189: 1128: 972: 325: 256: 273:

that is quite a lengthy article with way more than simple scores and statistics with 70 photos and 24 videos. Here's another

1887:

I haven't looked at those articles, but if they don't have continued coverage they might be candidates for deletion as well.—

339:

Cool! Someone ought to write those up! That's some significant widespread coverage, and I bet there's a whole bunch more!--

1713: 1075: 3005:

http://bloguin.com/crystalballrun/2012-articles/january/best-games-of-2011-michigan-stuns-notre-dame-under-the-lights.html

2648:, given that the rivalry article is supposed to be about the series in its entirety, not just the most recent game played. 1971: 1667: 1624: 142: 3093: 40: 2956: 2380:

Already coverage on the rivalry page and the teams' season articles. No need for an additional article in my opinion.

1438: 194: 2604:

I think it should be merged, but I think most of the merge destinations above are incorrect. This content belongs at

2565: 962: 888: 868: 997:

that 123,000 fans attended a November 26, 1927, game at Soldier Field between Notre Dame and Southern California.

308: 301:

And here are the equivalent articles for an insignificant Northwestern/Boston College game from this past season:

2059: 1594: 1523:. Just because it's the first night game in a school's history doesn't mean much. If you spread it out into the 2728:

Just want to say that I've been watching the sources Theworm has brought up but remain in my former position.

2341: 2095: 1602: 1113: 510: 2567:. This is "continuing coverage" like the other examples I have shown. I have added this to article now also. 410:, as "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events" that one would expect from a Football Bowl Subdivision game.— 2698: 2540: 2385: 2962: 2891: 2797: 2546: 2473: 2423: 1561:

not sufficiently noteworthy to qualify as a stand-alone article. Use the content in the season articles.--

1535: 428:

Absolutely agree that this is routine coverage. Almost every BCS game in the US receives similar coverage.

2614: 1819: 1752: 1746:

Can you give me an example of a 21st century regular season college football game that passes this test.--

1643: 1373: 1017: 916: 805:

Was the subject event "very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards?"

738:

Was the subject event "very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards?"

647: 391: 344: 288: 224: 2645: 2226: 2033: 1948: 1266: 669: 601: 526: 518: 3089: 3058: 3045: 3027: 3012: 2984: 2970: 2942: 2913: 2899: 2867: 2819: 2805: 2768: 2318: 2235: 2191: 2019: 1957: 1799: 1609:

that is not the case here so it therefor falls neatly into what WP:NOTNEWSPAPER envisages when it says

1244: 1149: 958: 884: 864: 776: 613: 36: 2336: 1270: 1215: 3054: 2980: 2909: 2886:

http://www.rantsports.com/big-10-football/2012/03/16/michigan-notre-dame-to-be-under-the-lights-again/

2815: 2516:

I struck out "only". The coverage is ROUTINE IMO and trending toward recentism as others have noted.—

2882:

http://espn.go.com/blog/notre-dame-football/post/_/id/5464/take-two-wolverines-irish-under-the-lights

2792:

http://www.michigandaily.com/sports/2012-schefters-honoring-best-year-resurrection-michigan-athletics

2715: 2572: 2503: 2459: 2410: 2349: 2277: 2211: 2136:

From a sports fan perspective, sure. However, I was using a less fan-based perspective, specifically

2123: 2067: 1910: 1874: 1699: 1543: 1476: 1433:

from June 10, 2011 talks about the uniforms (marketing ploy to sell more jerseys). Exactly 1 article

1350: 1261:. Yes, it would be good to have sports-specific examples that convey the more general principles of 820: 2674: 2626: 2451:

on Mar 15, 2012. It was ranked 3rd best in Top 10 college football games for 2011 regular season at

2291: 2182: 1831: 1764: 1385: 1029: 928: 665: 639: 630: 626: 498: 407: 280: 238: 2880:

Plenty of other articles from other news sources - for example an ESPN article from 20 March 2012 (

2736: 2682: 2653: 1934: 1726: 1566: 1507: 1451: 1328: 1185: 1124: 433: 376: 319: 250: 202: 162: 2137: 2099: 2888:. These all seem to be examples of ongoing news coverage from 6 months after the original game. 2694: 2536: 2381: 2328: 1164: 1103: 2427: 2401: 1598: 1262: 1079: 625:

Sounds like a cool dictionary! I'd say the better definition should be what is outlined in the

502: 371:

to be what would be considered a notable game to have its own page, with 61 references to boot!

305: 274: 2609: 2521: 2485: 2435: 2299: 2253: 2145: 2107: 2041: 2000: 1979: 1892: 1866: 1858: 1814: 1747: 1639: 1418: 1368: 1300: 1278: 1223: 1087: 1049: 1012: 1002: 984: 975:) and three horse tracks (Churchill, Belmont, Pimlico) that regularly draw larger crowds (see 911: 790:

Yes, it was the first night game at Michigan Stadium and 2 elite programs played in this game.

643: 460: 415: 387: 340: 284: 220: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3088:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2630: 2032:

Your goals are mostly being accomplished, as most participants have cited guidelines such as

1835: 1768: 1410: 1389: 1033: 993:

In fact, possibly not even the largest crowd at any college football game; the Chicago Bears

932: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

3023: 2938: 2863: 2761: 2314: 2231: 2187: 2170: 2015: 1953: 1925: 1795: 1686: 1662: 1619: 1406: 1240: 1207: 1145: 844: 772: 609: 2859: 1635: 1590: 1581: 896: 635: 549: 514: 494: 216: 3040:

What about the ESPN, South Bend Tribune, Detroit FreePress, etc articles mentioned above?

2711: 2568: 2499: 2455: 2406: 2345: 2273: 2207: 2119: 2063: 1906: 1870: 1695: 1539: 1472: 1346: 816: 2855: 1653: 1293:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Notability_of_regular_season_games_or_individual_plays

994: 589:

usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance

2729: 2678: 2649: 1930: 1719: 1562: 1503: 1447: 1324: 1178: 1117: 429: 372: 312: 302: 271: 243: 198: 2851: 2847: 811:

Is there "something further" that gives the event "additional enduring significance?"

755:

Is there "something further" that gives the event "additional enduring significance?"

279:

is a third good-sized article. These three examples are clearly beyond the scope of

796:

Yes, It set a NCAA record. It was also 1 of the top comebacks in Michigan's history.

2957:

http://sdcsports.com/more-games-under-the-lights-in-the-big-house-not-2012-so-when/

2517: 2481: 2431: 2295: 2249: 2178: 2141: 2103: 2037: 1996: 1975: 1888: 1414: 1296: 1274: 1257:

This is not unique to American football, as a similar Afd occurred for baseball at

1219: 1083: 1045: 998: 980: 456: 411: 53: 2294:

that any coverage of a team would mention the last matchup with a given opponent.—

109: 1597:), the relent notability guidelines here (other than WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) are either 908:

First night game at the largest football stadium (college or pro) in the country.

808:

Yes, It won awards above and was ranked 3rd best regular season game of the year.

799:

Does the subject event have "have widespread (national or international) impact?"

721:

Does the subject event have "have widespread (national or international) impact?"

1657: 1614: 840: 534: 530: 2094:

Note that earlier consensus is that bowl games are presumed to be notable per

1652:

Then, given the game was in September 2011, there will be no problem showing

971:

Not true, not even close. There are 10 motor speedways (one of which is the

2449: 1218:

in the event the article is deleted. I don't believe it needs a redirect.—

2058:(split from here also) is played But its too soon to tell I dont have a 1367:

You sound like a keep vote, but you are not registering your opinion.--

1259:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Game Six of the 2011 World Series

2693:

I 100% agree...you pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.

977:

List of sporting venues with a highest attendance of 100,000 or more

2955:

Another example of on-going coverage from SDC Sports, 17 Feb 2012 (

2054:

Re: Just like them bowl games This game could be talked about when

1634:

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not ignoring the policy of

638:, I would say that the event in question has cleared the hurdle of 1273:

their content in team, season, series, or even stadium articles.—

241:

coverage however? Most college football games probably meet GNG.

3082:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2332: 2564:

and was rated 36 best game/event of 2011 by Sports Illustrated.

1974:

is not always indicative that similar articles should be kept.—

1269:

while encouraging editors to find more appropriate articles to

785:

Does the subject event have "enduring historical significance?"

687:

Does the subject event have "enduring historical significance?"

2671:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(sports)#Individual_games_or_series

2290:

I dont consider this non-trivial coverage. Also, it's pretty

215:

I'm quite sure that enough sources exist to more than surpass

187:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(sports)#Individual_games_or_series

2710:

bowl games and Conf. Championship games which have articles.

1605:, there is a requirement that coverage of an event continue 1044:

Note that I used the weasel-words "possibly" and "claim"...

1656:

that cover the game that have been published in 2012 then.

793:

Does the subject event have "a significant lasting effect?"

704:

Does the subject event have "a significant lasting effect?"

1498:

any non-duplicative information where appropriate (likely

895:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this 1210:

already mentioned the first night game taking place, and

276:

with preview before the game and review afterward. Here

2036:

or its variants which can be applied to other articles.—

1865:— featured the most points scored in a game between two 2062:. Its too soon to know if there will be more coverage. 1345:

10, 2011" it comes up with "About 1,850,000 results".

1214:

has details of the actual game. Information is already

105: 101: 97: 2608:

in more detail than at either team's season article.--

2169:

any non-duplicative information where appropriate per

161: 2102:

and re-created later if/when more coverage is found.—

1849:

Here is 2 more games they both set NCAA records like

1500:

2011 Michigan Wolverines football team#vs. Notre Dame

1212:

2011_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team#vs._Notre_Dame

475:

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

185:

1. The article violates WP:Notability, specifically

1611:

most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion

175: 2118:A NCAA Record has historical significance. Right? 1863:2007 Weber State vs. Portland State football game 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3096:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3003:And a 31 January 2012 lengthy overview article ( 1947:Bagumba, take a look at the different ways that 1295:regarding the notability of individual games.— 2760:- Wholeheartedly agree with Dirtlawyer here. 2430:could be used to share text within articles.— 1851:2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football gamedid 8: 3007:) calling it one of the best games of 2011. 2335:, NBC sports, Sporting News, and USA Today. 2175:2004 South Florida vs. Alabama football game 1691:2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team 1638:. I'm stating that it has been surpassed.-- 1529:2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team 485:. 3. Having no special quality; ordinary: 364:2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team 1995:focus of the article, not the entire game.— 197:, where such coverage is more appropriate. 1861:record for most points scored in a game. 1788:2006 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game 1291:Note also that there is an ongoing RfC at 861:1969 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game 544:"Events are probably notable if they have 72:2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game 64:2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game 567:especially if also re-analyzed afterwards 1784:2003 Arkansas vs. Kentucky football game 310:... the definition of routine coverage. 2266:Here is some coverage from 3 days ago. 1855:2007 Navy vs. North Texas football game 1169:I understand, hence the specification " 2480:citing the raw number of search hits.— 2400:The coverage on the other pages are a 1683:2011 Michigan Wolverines football team 1525:2011 Michigan Wolverines football team 2272:and its not even football season yet. 957:sporting event in the United States. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2606:Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry 2056:Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry 1607:beyond a relatively short news cycle 553: 1792:2011 LSU vs. Alabama football game 483:made his routine trip to the store 369:2011 LSU vs. Alabama football game 24: 2269:more from about 20 days ago here 552:, or if they have a significant 546:enduring historical significance 973:Michigan International Speedway 1: 1593:(or rather the subsection of 1441:article! Now, if you google " 1082:weight as currently written.— 525:"Editors should bear in mind 2177:as it was Alabama's last at 1411:masks the lack of notability 1108:- Does anyone else feel all 550:general notability guideline 479:a routine check of passports 1439:Michigan-Notre Dame rivalry 3113: 3050:02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 3032:01:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 3017:01:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 2975:01:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 2947:01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 2904:01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 2872:00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 2810:00:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 2354:16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 2323:01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 481:. 2. Habitual; regular: 58:02:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 2783:15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 2745:18:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 2720:17:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 2703:02:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC) 2687:19:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 2658:04:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2636:03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2577:19:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC) 2551:03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC) 2526:06:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2508:05:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2490:05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2464:05:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2448:It was talked about here 2440:03:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2415:03:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2390:02:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2304:05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2282:04:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2258:01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2240:01:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2216:01:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2196:00:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2150:02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2128:02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2112:01:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2072:01:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2046:01:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2024:01:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 2005:00:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1984:01:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1962:00:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1939:00:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1915:00:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1897:00:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1879:00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1841:02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1804:23:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1774:23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1738:23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1704:22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1670:07:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1648:23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1627:22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1571:22:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1552:21:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1512:20:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1481:20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1456:21:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1423:20:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1395:20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1355:20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1333:19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1305:19:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1283:19:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1249:18:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1228:18:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1194:18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1154:18:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1133:17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1092:17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1054:19:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1039:19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1007:18:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 989:18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 967:17:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 938:17:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 873:16:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 849:15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 825:09:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC) 781:15:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 652:14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 642:. That's my reasoning.-- 618:14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 465:13:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 455:per nom and Eagles 24/7. 438:20:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 420:18:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 396:10:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 381:03:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 349:02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 331:02:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 293:02:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 270:Well, yeah... here's one 262:22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 229:22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 207:21:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC) 3085:Please do not modify it. 473:. According to my $ 60 32:Please do not modify it. 1782:Tony, try these three: 1171:in today's sports world 949:Also the largest crowd 1531:articles, it'd work. 3067:few or no other edits 2993:few or no other edits 2922:few or no other edits 2828:few or no other edits 1681:This is a split from 959:User:Davidfreesefan23 881:Note to closing admin 865:User:Davidfreesefan23 569:(as described below). 3069:outside this topic. 2995:outside this topic. 2924:outside this topic. 2830:outside this topic. 2476:about limitation of 1076:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE 629:guideline (although 1972:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1428:reply to theworm777 2843:The Michigan Daily 2602:Merge and redirect 2329:Sports Illustrated 668:is one element of 3070: 2996: 2965:comment added by 2925: 2894:comment added by 2831: 2800:comment added by 2634: 1839: 1772: 1585:are ignoring the 1578:All those saying 1555: 1538:comment added by 1413:of this article.— 1393: 1168: 1107: 1056: 1037: 936: 900: 3104: 3087: 3052: 2978: 2977: 2907: 2906: 2813: 2812: 2780: 2773: 2766: 2733: 2612: 2554: 2060:WP: Crystal ball 1857:— currently the 1853:for attendance. 1817: 1750: 1735: 1729: 1722: 1687:Michigan Stadium 1665: 1660: 1622: 1617: 1554: 1532: 1407:Michigan Stadium 1371: 1208:Michigan Stadium 1182: 1162: 1121: 1101: 1043: 1015: 914: 885:Davidfreesefan23 878: 328: 322: 315: 259: 253: 246: 180: 179: 165: 113: 95: 34: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3094:deletion review 3083: 2960: 2889: 2795: 2776: 2769: 2762: 2731: 2544: 1733: 1727: 1720: 1663: 1658: 1620: 1615: 1595:WP:NOTNEWSPAPER 1533: 1180: 1119: 326: 320: 313: 257: 251: 244: 193:as well as the 122: 86: 70: 67: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3110: 3108: 3099: 3098: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3035: 3034: 3019: 2998: 2997: 2950: 2949: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2875: 2874: 2833: 2832: 2785: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2723: 2722: 2690: 2689: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2639: 2638: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2556: 2555: 2549:comment added 2529: 2528: 2511: 2510: 2493: 2492: 2467: 2466: 2443: 2442: 2418: 2417: 2393: 2392: 2373: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2342:WP:SPORTSEVENT 2325: 2307: 2306: 2285: 2284: 2261: 2260: 2243: 2242: 2219: 2218: 2199: 2198: 2183:2000 Iron Bowl 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2131: 2130: 2096:WP:SPORTSEVENT 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2049: 2048: 2027: 2026: 2008: 2007: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1965: 1964: 1942: 1941: 1918: 1917: 1900: 1899: 1882: 1881: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1807: 1806: 1777: 1776: 1741: 1740: 1707: 1706: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1603:WP:SPORTSEVENT 1573: 1556: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1425: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1358: 1357: 1336: 1335: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1286: 1285: 1252: 1251: 1231: 1230: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1157: 1156: 1136: 1135: 1114:WP:SPORTSEVENT 1095: 1094: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 941: 940: 876: 875: 852: 851: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 815:significance". 812: 809: 806: 803: 800: 797: 794: 791: 788: 787: 786: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 657: 656: 655: 654: 595: 594: 593: 592: 582: 581: 580: 579: 573: 572: 571: 570: 560: 559: 558: 557: 554:lasting effect 539: 538: 521:, which says: 511:WP:SPORTSEVENT 468: 467: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 423: 422: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 383: 352: 351: 334: 333: 296: 295: 265: 264: 232: 231: 183: 182: 119: 66: 61: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3109: 3097: 3095: 3091: 3086: 3080: 3079: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3020: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2958: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2933: 2932: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2840: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2793: 2789: 2786: 2784: 2781: 2779: 2774: 2772: 2767: 2765: 2759: 2756: 2755: 2746: 2743: 2742: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2734: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2695:Go Phightins! 2692: 2691: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2665: 2664: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2637: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2600: 2599: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2563: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2552: 2548: 2542: 2538: 2537:Go Phightins! 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2474:WP:GOOGLETEST 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2450: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2424:WP:AVOIDSPLIT 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2403: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2382:Go Phightins! 2379: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2160: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1993: 1992: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1950: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1842: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1775: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1739: 1736: 1731: 1730: 1724: 1723: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1677: 1671: 1668: 1666: 1661: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1640:Paul McDonald 1637: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1623: 1618: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1580:Keep - meets 1577: 1574: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1444: 1440: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1321: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1265:and avoiding 1264: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1183: 1176: 1172: 1166: 1165:edit conflict 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1122: 1115: 1111: 1105: 1104:edit conflict 1100: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1070: 1069: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 991: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 969: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 945: 944: 943: 942: 939: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 913: 909: 907: 903: 902: 901: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 874: 870: 866: 862: 857: 854: 853: 850: 846: 842: 837: 834: 833: 826: 822: 818: 813: 810: 807: 804: 801: 798: 795: 792: 789: 784: 783: 782: 778: 774: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 671: 667: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 653: 649: 645: 644:Paul McDonald 641: 637: 632: 628: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 615: 611: 605: 603: 597: 590: 586: 585: 584: 583: 577: 576: 575: 574: 568: 564: 563: 562: 561: 555: 551: 548:and meet the 547: 543: 542: 541: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 520: 516: 512: 506: 504: 500: 496: 490: 488: 487:a routine day 484: 480: 476: 472: 466: 462: 458: 454: 451: 450: 439: 435: 431: 427: 426: 425: 424: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 404: 397: 393: 389: 388:Paul McDonald 384: 382: 378: 374: 370: 365: 360: 356: 355: 354: 353: 350: 346: 342: 341:Paul McDonald 338: 337: 336: 335: 332: 329: 324: 323: 317: 316: 309: 306: 303: 300: 299: 298: 297: 294: 290: 286: 285:Paul McDonald 282: 278: 275: 272: 269: 268: 267: 266: 263: 260: 255: 254: 248: 247: 240: 236: 235: 234: 233: 230: 226: 222: 221:Paul McDonald 218: 214: 211: 210: 209: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 188: 178: 174: 171: 168: 164: 160: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 138: 135: 132: 128: 125: 124:Find sources: 120: 117: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 68: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3084: 3081: 2961:— Preceding 2934: 2890:— Preceding 2842: 2838: 2796:— Preceding 2787: 2777: 2770: 2763: 2757: 2741: 2737: 2730: 2666: 2646:WP:Recentism 2610:TonyTheTiger 2601: 2477: 2428:Transclusion 2377: 2372: 2227:WP:NEWSEVENT 2179:Legion Field 2166: 2162: 2034:WP:NEWSEVENT 1949:WP:NEWSEVENT 1815:TonyTheTiger 1813:something.-- 1748:TonyTheTiger 1725: 1718: 1678: 1631: 1610: 1606: 1586: 1579: 1575: 1558: 1534:— Preceding 1520: 1495: 1491: 1442: 1427: 1369:TonyTheTiger 1341: 1319: 1267:WP:RECENTISM 1236: 1216:WP:PRESERVEd 1204: 1190: 1186: 1179: 1174: 1170: 1141: 1129: 1125: 1118: 1098: 1071: 1013:TonyTheTiger 954: 950: 946: 912:TonyTheTiger 905: 904: 880: 877: 855: 835: 670:WP:NEWSEVENT 606: 602:WP:NEWSEVENT 598: 596: 588: 566: 545: 535:media events 519:WP:NEWSEVENT 507: 491: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 469: 452: 318: 311: 249: 242: 212: 184: 172: 166: 158: 151: 145: 139: 133: 123: 49: 47: 31: 28: 3065:) has made 3055:8.17.58.207 3042:8.17.58.207 3024:Dirtlawyer1 3009:8.17.58.207 2991:) has made 2981:8.17.58.207 2967:8.17.58.207 2939:Dirtlawyer1 2920:) has made 2910:8.17.58.207 2896:8.17.58.207 2864:Dirtlawyer1 2826:) has made 2816:8.17.58.207 2802:8.17.58.207 2545:—Preceding 2337:WP:NSEASONS 2315:Dirtlawyer1 2232:Dirtlawyer1 2188:Patriarca12 2181:or for the 2171:Dirtlawyer1 2016:Dirtlawyer1 1954:Dirtlawyer1 1869:opponents. 1796:Dirtlawyer1 1714:"continued" 1271:WP:PRESERVE 1241:Dirtlawyer1 1146:Dirtlawyer1 951:of all time 773:Dirtlawyer1 610:Dirtlawyer1 531:news values 149:free images 2712:Theworm777 2627:WP:CHICAGO 2569:Theworm777 2500:Theworm777 2456:Theworm777 2407:Theworm777 2346:Theworm777 2292:WP:ROUTINE 2274:Theworm777 2208:Theworm777 2120:Theworm777 2064:Theworm777 1926:attendance 1907:Theworm777 1871:Theworm777 1867:Division I 1832:WP:CHICAGO 1765:WP:CHICAGO 1696:Theworm777 1540:ZappaOMati 1473:Theworm777 1386:WP:CHICAGO 1347:Theworm777 1175:proportion 1030:WP:CHICAGO 929:WP:CHICAGO 817:Theworm777 666:WP:ROUTINE 640:WP:ROUTINE 631:WP:NOTNEWS 627:WP:ROUTINE 499:WP:NSPORTS 408:WP:ROUTINE 281:WP:ROUTINE 237:Is it non- 3090:talk page 2732:Nolelover 2679:Tedmoseby 2650:Tedmoseby 2138:WP:EFFECT 1931:Tedmoseby 1563:GrapedApe 1504:CrazyPaco 1448:Tedmoseby 1325:Tedmoseby 1181:Nolelover 1120:Nolelover 1110:Déjà vu-y 527:recentism 430:CrazyPaco 386:scores.-- 373:Tedmoseby 199:Tedmoseby 37:talk page 3092:or in a 3063:contribs 2989:contribs 2963:unsigned 2918:contribs 2892:unsigned 2824:contribs 2798:unsigned 2402:WP:SPLIT 2100:userfied 1599:WP:EVENT 1548:contribs 1536:unsigned 1443:Historic 1263:WP:EVENT 1080:WP:UNDUE 893:contribs 503:WP:EVENT 116:View log 39:or in a 2839:Comment 2675:routine 2673:and is 2667:Comment 2631:WP:FOUR 2547:undated 2518:Bagumba 2482:Bagumba 2432:Bagumba 2296:Bagumba 2250:Bagumba 2142:Bagumba 2104:Bagumba 2038:Bagumba 1997:Bagumba 1976:Bagumba 1889:Bagumba 1836:WP:FOUR 1769:WP:FOUR 1632:Comment 1415:Bagumba 1390:WP:FOUR 1320:Comment 1297:Bagumba 1275:Bagumba 1237:Comment 1220:Bagumba 1205:Comment 1142:Comment 1084:Bagumba 1046:cmadler 1034:WP:FOUR 999:cmadler 981:cmadler 947:Comment 933:WP:FOUR 471:Comment 457:cmadler 412:Bagumba 239:routine 155:WP refs 143:scholar 89:protect 84:history 54:Keilana 2935:Delete 2860:WP:GNG 2758:Delete 2378:Delete 2163:Delete 1790:, and 1721:Eagles 1636:WP:NOT 1591:WP:NOT 1587:policy 1582:WP:GNG 1576:Delete 1559:Delete 1521:Delete 1492:Delete 1099:Delete 1074:Fails 1072:Delete 841:Jrcla2 836:Delete 664:Paul, 636:WP:GNG 515:WP:GNG 495:WP:GNG 453:Delete 314:Eagles 245:Eagles 217:WP:GNG 127:Google 93:delete 50:delete 2856:WP:RS 2771:Fault 2167:merge 1654:WP:RS 1496:merge 1342:reply 995:claim 170:JSTOR 131:books 110:views 102:watch 98:links 16:< 3059:talk 3046:talk 3028:talk 3013:talk 2985:talk 2971:talk 2943:talk 2914:talk 2900:talk 2868:talk 2854:and 2852:WP:V 2848:WP:N 2820:talk 2806:talk 2788:Keep 2778:Ryan 2716:talk 2699:talk 2683:talk 2654:talk 2573:talk 2541:talk 2522:talk 2504:talk 2486:talk 2478:only 2472:See 2460:talk 2436:talk 2411:talk 2386:talk 2350:talk 2333:ESPN 2319:talk 2300:talk 2278:talk 2254:talk 2236:talk 2212:talk 2192:talk 2165:and 2146:talk 2124:talk 2108:talk 2068:talk 2042:talk 2020:talk 2001:talk 1980:talk 1958:talk 1935:talk 1911:talk 1893:talk 1875:talk 1800:talk 1728:24/7 1700:talk 1689:and 1679:Keep 1664:king 1644:talk 1621:king 1567:talk 1544:talk 1527:and 1508:talk 1494:and 1477:talk 1452:talk 1419:talk 1351:talk 1329:talk 1301:talk 1279:talk 1245:talk 1224:talk 1150:talk 1088:talk 1050:talk 1003:talk 985:talk 963:talk 906:Keep 889:talk 869:talk 856:Keep 845:talk 821:talk 777:talk 648:talk 614:talk 501:and 461:talk 434:talk 416:talk 392:talk 377:talk 359:here 345:talk 321:24/7 289:talk 252:24/7 225:talk 213:Keep 203:talk 195:here 191:here 163:FENS 137:news 106:logs 80:talk 76:edit 2841:. 2623:BIO 2543:) 1859:FBS 1828:BIO 1794:. 1761:BIO 1734:(C) 1601:or 1589:of 1382:BIO 1026:BIO 955:any 953:at 925:BIO 897:XfD 489:." 327:(C) 283:.-- 258:(C) 177:TWL 114:– ( 3061:• 3053:— 3048:) 3030:) 3015:) 2987:• 2979:— 2973:) 2945:) 2916:• 2908:— 2902:) 2870:) 2850:, 2822:• 2814:— 2808:) 2764:De 2718:) 2701:) 2685:) 2656:) 2633:) 2575:) 2524:) 2506:) 2488:) 2462:) 2438:) 2413:) 2388:) 2352:) 2331:, 2321:) 2302:) 2280:) 2256:) 2238:) 2214:) 2194:) 2148:) 2140:.— 2126:) 2110:) 2070:) 2044:) 2022:) 2003:) 1982:) 1960:) 1937:) 1913:) 1895:) 1877:) 1838:) 1802:) 1786:, 1771:) 1702:) 1685:, 1659:Mt 1646:) 1616:Mt 1613:. 1569:) 1550:) 1546:• 1510:) 1479:) 1454:) 1421:) 1392:) 1353:) 1331:) 1303:) 1281:) 1247:) 1226:) 1152:) 1090:) 1052:) 1036:) 1005:) 987:) 965:) 935:) 910:-- 899:. 891:• 883:: 879:— 871:) 847:) 823:) 779:) 650:) 616:) 591:." 497:, 463:) 436:) 418:) 394:) 379:) 347:) 307:, 304:, 291:) 227:) 205:) 157:) 108:| 104:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 82:| 78:| 56:| 52:. 3057:( 3044:( 3026:( 3011:( 2983:( 2969:( 2941:( 2912:( 2898:( 2866:( 2818:( 2804:( 2714:( 2697:( 2681:( 2652:( 2629:/ 2625:/ 2621:/ 2619:C 2617:/ 2615:T 2613:( 2571:( 2553:. 2539:( 2520:( 2502:( 2484:( 2458:( 2434:( 2409:( 2384:( 2348:( 2317:( 2298:( 2276:( 2252:( 2234:( 2210:( 2190:( 2144:( 2122:( 2106:( 2066:( 2040:( 2018:( 1999:( 1978:( 1956:( 1933:( 1909:( 1891:( 1873:( 1834:/ 1830:/ 1826:/ 1824:C 1822:/ 1820:T 1818:( 1798:( 1767:/ 1763:/ 1759:/ 1757:C 1755:/ 1753:T 1751:( 1698:( 1642:( 1565:( 1542:( 1506:( 1475:( 1450:( 1417:( 1388:/ 1384:/ 1380:/ 1378:C 1376:/ 1374:T 1372:( 1349:( 1327:( 1299:( 1277:( 1243:( 1222:( 1167:) 1163:( 1148:( 1106:) 1102:( 1086:( 1048:( 1032:/ 1028:/ 1024:/ 1022:C 1020:/ 1018:T 1016:( 1001:( 983:( 961:( 931:/ 927:/ 923:/ 921:C 919:/ 917:T 915:( 887:( 867:( 843:( 819:( 775:( 646:( 612:( 556:. 459:( 432:( 414:( 390:( 375:( 343:( 287:( 223:( 201:( 181:) 173:· 167:· 159:· 152:· 146:· 140:· 134:· 129:( 121:( 118:) 112:) 74:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game - Knowledge (XXG)

Index