Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spygate incident (American football)
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 Nakon 05:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Spygate incident (American football)
Not notable enough for separate article. See 2007 New England Patriots season and Bill Belichick for basically the same material, without as much original research. Pats1 T/C 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like all the important info is already in the two articles mentioned. Agree that there's no need to have it in a third article.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What policy does this violate? It's a notable, sourced, and verifiable event that received rediculous amounts of coverage in sports media and resulted in unprecidented fines and forfeiture of a draft pick. Yes, it exists in other places, but maybe the solution should be to shorten the mention in those articles and throw a "Main Article: Spygate incident (American football)" tag on top of the section. The fact that both above users are Pats fans raises an eyebrow but I'll assume that's more an effect of the focus of the article than intentional bias. Bleeding Blue 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking only for myself and hopefully adressing your concerns. Full disclosure I am a Pats fan. If that were not the case I admit this AFD might not have attracted my attention. I don't believe it effected my opinion. Certainly the event should be covered. As you said, there was a large amount of coverage. My primary issue is the repetition. I think it's already well covered, and in my personal opinion covered in the right places.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see your concern with repetition and agree that we don't need three different places where this incident is discussed in great detail. I just think the better solution is to reduce coverage at Bill Belichick and 2007 New England Patriots season to a short summary paragraph with the (already existing) tag at the top to link to the full article. We could then expand that article to include reactions from various media and players (Tomlinson's "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying" comment and various reactions by Pats throughout the season come immediately to mind), the later revelation that Eric Mangini used the same tactics that he whistleblew the Pats for, the whole "Belichick's running up the score to get revenge" angle, etc. With improvement, this sounds like it could be a good/featured article, if it's kept neutral. Just my opinion, though. Bleeding Blue 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- How much of that is true encyclopedic material though? A lot of what you're talking about would make a good column, but not an encyclopedic entry. There are a very limited amount of facts about this "case." I won't rail them off again here, but if you go to 2007 New England Patriots season, you will see them - the pertinent NFL rules, the statements from both the NFL and Belichick. There's nothing else that truly came about. Pats1 T/C 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- My general point here is that there's very limited scope as to where this article can go. And you can only shorten the information on the other articles so much before context main details get lost. So I just don't see the point in cutting out the info where it fits perfectly (2007 NEP season, 2007 NFL season, etc.) and moving it here, when in fact the 2007 NFL season and 2007 NEP season articles are focused enough (on the 2007 season, and on the 2007 NEP season) that having the extent of information this article could have on those articles would not be a problem. Pats1 T/C 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm guessing it could probably work either way. I'd like to address you're notability concerns as an aside, however. I'm pretty sure this passes WP:N, which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Just by looking at sites like ESPN and SI alone we could satisfy that. Your point about NFL controversies not generally having articles doesn't hold for two reasons. One, most "controversies" in sports don't have the lasting magnitude of coverage that this one did; and two, the ones that did, do have their own pages. Without looking very hard, I find NFL player conduct controversy and Bad Newz Kennels from the past year or so alone. Using these examples, I would argue that, or instance, BNK does fine as it's own article with mentions on Michael Vick and 2007 Atlanta Falcons season. There's no policy against repeating material on several pages if it's relevant to each of the topics. Bleeding Blue 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right, my original nom was a bit off. The two articles you mentioned have considerably more scope and coverage than this does. The first deals with many, many players, and many incidents, most if not all of which are legal-related. The second has an incredible amount of developments and a huge scope. A major federal investigation. This incident's coverage, and especially actual developments and information doesn't even compare to those others. And you're correct with repeating material on several pages. That has already been done - 2007 NEP season, Belichick, 2007 NFL season, etc., etc. My issue is not one of notability or reliable sourcing. It's more of a merge request, except there's not really anything to merge, as it's essentially a copy of what's contained elsewhere. I just don't see the purpose in having a separate article when the same amount of information could be (and is) appropriately placed elsewhere. Pats1 T/C 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm guessing it could probably work either way. I'd like to address you're notability concerns as an aside, however. I'm pretty sure this passes WP:N, which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Just by looking at sites like ESPN and SI alone we could satisfy that. Your point about NFL controversies not generally having articles doesn't hold for two reasons. One, most "controversies" in sports don't have the lasting magnitude of coverage that this one did; and two, the ones that did, do have their own pages. Without looking very hard, I find NFL player conduct controversy and Bad Newz Kennels from the past year or so alone. Using these examples, I would argue that, or instance, BNK does fine as it's own article with mentions on Michael Vick and 2007 Atlanta Falcons season. There's no policy against repeating material on several pages if it's relevant to each of the topics. Bleeding Blue 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see your concern with repetition and agree that we don't need three different places where this incident is discussed in great detail. I just think the better solution is to reduce coverage at Bill Belichick and 2007 New England Patriots season to a short summary paragraph with the (already existing) tag at the top to link to the full article. We could then expand that article to include reactions from various media and players (Tomlinson's "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying" comment and various reactions by Pats throughout the season come immediately to mind), the later revelation that Eric Mangini used the same tactics that he whistleblew the Pats for, the whole "Belichick's running up the score to get revenge" angle, etc. With improvement, this sounds like it could be a good/featured article, if it's kept neutral. Just my opinion, though. Bleeding Blue 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking only for myself and hopefully adressing your concerns. Full disclosure I am a Pats fan. If that were not the case I admit this AFD might not have attracted my attention. I don't believe it effected my opinion. Certainly the event should be covered. As you said, there was a large amount of coverage. My primary issue is the repetition. I think it's already well covered, and in my personal opinion covered in the right places.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as one of the biggest scandals of the 2007 football season. Burzmali (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and how many other "scandals" in the NFL (2007 or not) were notable enough for their own separate articles (i.e. not in their respective 19**/20** NFL season articles)?. Pats1 T/C 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Beats me, I would have said biggest in the last few years, but as a Pats fan, I figured that I'm biased. Burzmali (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, the Minnesota Vikings boat party scandal, the Snow Bowl, the Immaculate Reception, the National Football League player conduct controversy, etc. Torc2 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- How are the Immac. Recep. and Tuck Rule Game articles "scandals?" The Vikings boat party scandal also had a lot more developments, especially over the long-term, than this did. Pats1 T/C 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- They are controversial events, like this, that people will look for by name and will expect (rightly so) to have their own articles rather than be buried in team or season pages. There's no question, no question whatsoever, that this event had sufficient press coverage to be independently notable. Torc2 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- How are the Immac. Recep. and Tuck Rule Game articles "scandals?" The Vikings boat party scandal also had a lot more developments, especially over the long-term, than this did. Pats1 T/C 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and how many other "scandals" in the NFL (2007 or not) were notable enough for their own separate articles (i.e. not in their respective 19**/20** NFL season articles)?. Pats1 T/C 22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep but rename - This event was definitely notable. It also involved more than one team, so placing it under one team's history isn't appropriate. This is absolutely worthy of its own article. I also suggest renaming to just Spygate, which currently redirects to an F1 incident. However, this incident is the much, much more commonly known "Spygate" and should occupy the primary article, with a hatnote to direct readers to the F1 incident. Torc2 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- What "other team" did it involve? Pats1 T/C 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Jets. Their involvement is not insignificant. Torc2 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- From which standpoint? Their original accusations or the later (or actually it was prior, but never hit the mainstream media) emergence of Mangini's possible infractions in 2006? Pats1 T/C 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, as far as the latter, that was contained in Jets-Patriots rivalry, in just a short paragraph. And that contained just about all the information that came out on the subject. Pats1 T/C 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- You've just shown that information on a single topic people are interested in is spread between two articles for apparently no reason. It's better in a single article. There's no question that people will remember this and look for it in its own article, and no compelling reason to bury it somewhere in NE's team article. Torc2 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Jets. Their involvement is not insignificant. Torc2 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep a notable incident that stands on its own as an article, supplying ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - A major news story this past year and clearly notable in sports history, culture, the NFL, cheating, etc... all things beyond the Patriots page. Tons of information from news sources. Gwynand (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm a Pats fan, but I don't think there is any benefit to WP by deleting all of this information. It was a big event that has affected this past NFL season immensely. --Tocino 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2007 New England Patriots season. It's obviously notable, but there isn't enough to say about it that can't be covered there. --B (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Please note that this article has been copied and pasted to Spygate. So...the whole article history will have to be cleaned up. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe this is a very notable incident and should have it's own article, especially if the patriots go 19-0 and win the super bowl. Right now most of the information could be in those 2 articles mentioned but people could expand on it where it's big enough for it's own article. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This incident is as notable as it has happened. If the Pats lose Super Bowl XLII, this could be rendered meaningless. An aftermath should be added though on how this affected how the NFL handles videotape issues. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:19 AM US EST Jan 21 2008.
- Redirect to 2007 New England Patriots season. The incident should be and is covered in the encyclopedia. The question is whether it requires a separate article. I think it can be properly covered in a section in 2007 New England Patriots season. Chaz Beckett 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Why not have an article on it since it is a noteworthy and controversial event and people will want to look it up? This is far from the only issue that has a lot of overlap with other articles. It has called into question the integrity of the Patriots' accomplishments and the league itself, just like other sports controversies. I wonder if the votes for "Delete" are coming from the NFL's powers that be - the way they quickly grabbed and destroyed those tapes makes it apparent that they wanted this to die quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.180.183 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It is one of the biggest sporting news stories of 2007 along with the Mithcell Report. In light of the Patriots going undefeated in the 2007 season it, like the Mithchell Report, raises questions about fair play in winning. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This incident should not be swept under the rug by Wikipedia!! As others have said, this was, and still is, a very important and newsworthy event that raises questions regarding the New England Patriots' perfect* regular season.--cajuncocoa 19:56, 22 January 2008
- 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.
