Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech 222, Cumberland 0 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

347:
recommended deletion are very unconvincing and only justify their arguments based on easily correctible technicalities. I see bits and pieces about this game around the net and was hoping it could come to some coherence. The fact that some have expaned on it makes it worthwhile and that, in the end, was what I was hoping for. --
346:
Ok, maybe the title could be better, but I started this article and was hoping it could be expanded on. I am new to wikipedia and learning the ropes and hoping to make my own little contribution. Maybe I should study the protocols better but I stand by that this is a significant entry and those who
253:
conspiracy against to make us like soccer and techno music. I can assure you that any articles dealing with soccer get as much scrutiny as those American football. I think those that disagree with us find this to be random trivia and/or a crappy article with a bad title. We think the article has
232:
as per JJay...this is what happens when non-Americans try to dictate what is important to Americans...they try and delete things that are significant that they've never heard of....i bet there are plenty of soccer entries i could AFD using this criteria.
64:
Found during stubsorting. Not only is it a bad title, it's something that should be mentioned in the article on the teams involved. If the teams don't deserve articles the game doesn't either. I'm not sure if it can be
254:
merit. That is the only difference. I do think that there should be another name for the article, as the current title sounds a bit odd. However, we are all here to make wikipedia a better resource.
181: 108:
since this seems to have precipitated them dropping their football program, but it's already there. I doubt the article could be expanded further, so
188:. There does seem to be a faint consensus that non-routine, highly unusual or record-setting results are notable. This would count. 17: 205: 177: 400: 384: 368: 338: 322: 298: 278: 258: 237: 224: 212: 192: 164: 152: 140: 128: 116: 99: 80: 52: 58: 361: 418: 36: 417:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
270:
instead: some crazed cricket fans created articles for EVERY game in the English league's season last year. --
69:
as I'm not aware of naming conventions for these sports teams, but if merging isn't an option, this should be
78: 184:
as to whether individual sports results are worthy of inclusion; no consensus appears to have been reached
208:. Ive seen this score cited a bazillion times in various formats. More than just a fact to be collected. 311: 105: 89:. Individual articles on football games notable only for extreme scorelines are not encyclopedic. -- 149: 49: 381: 335: 294:
per Smerdis. I'm normally against articles on regular-season games, but this event is famous. --
255: 209: 74: 94: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
319: 275: 348: 246: 365: 250: 45: 397: 295: 137: 113: 90: 315: 271: 189: 161: 125: 234: 306:. Nothing here. When there's enough material for even a halfway decent stub, 221: 267: 264:...there are plenty of soccer entries i could AFD using this criteria 148:
This can be mentioned on each teams' article page, if required. --
334:
per Smerdis. Cumberland's page on the subject is quite amusing.--
411:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
360:
per Smerdis - precedent already set with the articles in
245:. Remember to assume good faith here. I doubt its any 220:
and expand. Important in college football history. --
380:
per Smerdis. Notable game in football history. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 421:). No further edits should be made to this page. 8: 362:Category:National Football League lore 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 44:The result of the debate was keep. 104:Was going to suggest Merging with 24: 206:Georgia Tech v. Cumberland, 1916 178:Georgia Tech v. Cumberland, 1916 59:Georgia Tech 222, Cumberland 0 1: 53:12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 401:21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 385:20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 369:12:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 339:01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 323:01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 299:00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 279:01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 259:00:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 238:23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 225:21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 213:20:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 193:20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 165:17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 153:17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 141:16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 129:15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 117:14:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 100:14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 81:12:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 438: 414:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 312:Cumberland University 106:Cumberland University 310:break it out from 180:. There's been a 182:recent discussion 97: 429: 416: 95: 34: 437: 436: 432: 431: 430: 428: 427: 426: 425: 419:deletion review 412: 396:per Smerdis. -- 247:New World Order 190:Smerdis of Tlön 136:per Squiddy. -- 62: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 435: 433: 424: 423: 406: 404: 403: 387: 371: 351: 341: 325: 301: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 251:European Union 227: 215: 195: 167: 155: 150:(aeropagitica) 143: 131: 119: 102: 61: 56: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 434: 422: 420: 415: 409: 408: 407: 402: 399: 395: 391: 388: 386: 383: 382:FrankCostanza 379: 375: 372: 370: 367: 363: 359: 355: 352: 350: 345: 342: 340: 337: 336:SarekOfVulcan 333: 329: 326: 324: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 302: 300: 297: 293: 289: 286: 280: 277: 273: 269: 265: 262: 261: 260: 257: 256:Youngamerican 252: 248: 244: 241: 240: 239: 236: 231: 228: 226: 223: 219: 216: 214: 211: 210:Youngamerican 207: 203: 199: 196: 194: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 168: 166: 163: 159: 156: 154: 151: 147: 144: 142: 139: 135: 132: 130: 127: 124:per Squiddy. 123: 120: 118: 115: 111: 107: 103: 101: 98: 96:(squirt ink?) 92: 88: 85: 84: 83: 82: 79: 76: 72: 68: 60: 57: 55: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 413: 410: 405: 393: 389: 377: 373: 357: 353: 343: 331: 327: 307: 303: 291: 287: 263: 242: 229: 217: 201: 197: 185: 173: 169: 157: 145: 133: 121: 109: 86: 70: 66: 63: 43: 31: 28: 349:MrMurph101 114:Wrathchild 366:Sam Vimes 186:generally 46:Johnleemk 398:Arcadian 296:Mwalcoff 138:kingboyk 268:cricket 243:Comment 91:Squiddy 71:deleted 316:Calton 304:Delete 272:Calton 158:Delete 146:Delete 134:Delete 126:Stifle 122:Delete 110:delete 87:Delete 67:merged 235:WillC 16:< 394:move 392:and 390:Keep 378:move 376:and 374:Keep 358:move 356:and 354:Keep 344:Keep 332:Move 330:and 328:Keep 320:Talk 314:. -- 308:then 292:move 290:and 288:Keep 276:Talk 266:Try 230:KEEP 222:JJay 218:Keep 202:move 200:and 198:Keep 174:move 172:and 170:Keep 160:pa. 73:. - 50:Talk 204:to 176:to 162:Dan 75:Mgm 364:. 318:| 274:| 112:. 93:| 48:| 249:/ 77:|

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
Johnleemk
Talk
12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Georgia Tech 222, Cumberland 0
Mgm

12:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Squiddy
(squirt ink?)
14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Cumberland University
Wrathchild
14:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Stifle
15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
kingboyk
16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
(aeropagitica)
17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Dan
17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Georgia Tech v. Cumberland, 1916
recent discussion
Smerdis of Tlön
20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Georgia Tech v. Cumberland, 1916
Youngamerican
20:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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