Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The "Scramble & Gamble"

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. This is a good example of how elapsed time seems to help. The "play" is still talked about, nullifying the NOT#NEWS arguments. As time goes by, the keep opinions far outweigh (and outnumber) the delete opinions. That being said, Wikipedia is not in the business of "coining" new terms or catchphrases. "Scramble and Gamble" will be deleted as a redirect until it is a proven (in reliable, independent, verifiable sources) term used to describe this play. Besides the unverifiability of the term, it is a highly unlikely "typo" in that it includes quotation marks and an ampersand (&), making it an unlikely search term. Right now, the article is titled Eli Manning pass to David Tyree, which is not the best title, but is better than anything I can come up with. No prejudice against renaming/moving in the future once this is properly nicked in a similar way to The Catch or The Drive.

I am also closing the article titled The Catch (2008) as merge. However, I will not be merging any content as closing administrator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Scramble & Gamble"

The "Scramble & Gamble" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

NOTE - This article has been moved to Super Bowl XLII Manning-Tyree Pass. Torc2 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE 2 - Deletion debate is here on yet another article on this one play. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE to closing admin. The article that is under discussion here has actually changed multiple times to do mergers and redirects. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is absurdity, stretching the concept of "notability" beyond all human recognition. At best, this non-notable phrase should be a redirect to an article on the football game in question. Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep or Merge The author is a professional sports journalist and respectfully suggests that this article be kept at least until an official name is given to the play, much like "The Catch" or "Immaculate Reception" or "The Drive" or "The Play" or "The Comeback" are names given to sporting events by sports reporters. Several sports news outlets (incl. Fox Sports, ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, and CBSSportsline.com) have all raised specific commentary on this single play ranging from it being the greatest catch in Super Bowl history to simply the greatest play in NFL history. Since other single plays are known by nicknames, this article is a place which allows for similar honor SteV1der (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • N.B.: I've struck out your recommendation here because you superceded it with a "delete" below. Powers T 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete never asserts notability, seems to be an essay. Maybe a redirect to Super Bowl XLII? On an non-deletion note, the article cites Wikipedia as one of the references Doc Strange (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to main SB article for now. Strong keep - There's no question that this play was notable (and even if not, why move straight to AfD instead of tagging?), and has already been specifically called out in several articles. It is questionable whether it is sufficiently notable to stand alone right now, and there's no reason to think the name given will stick. Torc2 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply - there's no speedy tag for this. I put a Prod tag on it, and it was immediately yanked by the author (who seems to have a personal investment in this particular phrase). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • reply - I didn't mean speedy tag it; I meant tag for {{notability}}. The editor's possible COI for the name only means that the article could/should be moved, but the event itself is notable, possibly even notable enough for a separate article (a la The Catch (American football) or the Immaculate Reception, as noted above). The information in the article itself seems valid, so at the very least it should be merged. Torc2 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • reply - The event itself is clearly notable and the author's naming of the event is subject to it catching on in American parlance. Questions of notability were raised and rather than debate, the journalist in question will allow public discussion and to judge validity, but perhaps it is best to simply delete this article. Author composed it and searched for additional sources since no other standalone article on the subject existed. With respect to wikipedia reference, article inclusion is as footnote. SteV1der (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • query - Do you wish to support the deletion yourself, SteV1der? If so: since you were the initial creator of the article (and primary editor), if you blank the page and summarize the edit as "Blanking by author pursuant to deletion consensus", an admin will then delete the article without prejudice in case the phrase does become notable later. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • comment - I think that would be an exceptionally bad idea. It's clear now that the play is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) The only question is the name. Maybe we should just name it Manning to Tyree until something more established comes along. Torc2 (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with strong prejudice. No need for this. As an American football fan I know everything that needs to be said about this play belongs in Super Bowl XLI. The title is a hideous neologism that will never gain currency. No redirect. Quale (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • comment Pssst...wrong Super Bowl. Torc2 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete & Delete Changing vote to go with what seems to be the consensus. One of the best Super Bowls ever, and someone's ruining the memory with an article called "Scramble & Gamble" Mandsford (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is there any rule preventing the article from being renamed now? It's obvious people are judging only the name rather than the topic itself. Torc2 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge - go ahead and merge this thing with whatever becomes the accepted name, if it isn't Scramble & Gamble. Not everyone has to like the name for it to be called what it ends up being called. I've deleted all references to the name in the article itself to make it easier. All nicknames require someone to publish work first, then receive the criticism or praise, but there's always a first person to read. I would think the Giants will take an official position at or after the parade through the Canyon of Heroes (and the article and the name, along with I'm sure MANY others, has been submitted to the team for evaluation. I have not received word one way or another and do not expect to, judging by the unfavorable response. However, the article is not entirely without merit. SteV1der (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Once there is a name, and it becomes accepted, it makes sense to have a separate article, as there already is on The Catch and The Drive. But to create a title and hope that it becomes the name is backwards. As it is, the play is already referenced in both the game and the player's (David Tyree) page, so it's not necessary to have a separate article until there is an established phrase. --Diogenes00 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, if it becomes widely used, maybe a mention in the main article. MBisanz talk 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved and rewritten. Please revisit this. It clearly has independent notability established and absolutely should remain as a separate article, regardless of name. Torc2 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Torc2 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - there is also a duplicate page; see Eli Manning Pass To David Tyree.--Diogenes00 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is far, far, far, far, far too early to accurately judge the notability of this one play, and Wikipedia should not become a source of notability (nor should Wikipedia be responsible for promoting a coined name for this play, although that error seems to have been mostly rectified (pending deletion of the redirect)). Powers T 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • On what do you base that comment? There is no minimum time required for notability to be established. The play happened, and the next day there were multiple articles specifically about that one play and how critical it was. I watched The Daily Show last night, and Jon Stewart even talked specifically' about that play. Torc2 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Lots of plays get talked about the next day, even dissected in detail. A week might be enough time to judge this accurately. Two days is not. Powers T 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not fading away. Of all the plays in the game, that's the play featured on the Late Show, that's the one still being written about by the AP, that's the one being called the play we will never forget. Can you name a single individual play in football history that generated this much press and didn't get remembered? Torc2 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Just how would I be able to name such a play if it wasn't remembered? You've set me an impossible task. Powers T 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - as news (for now). Of course there will be coverage of the play. It was a significant play in this particular game. But will it remain as something discussed in the future. That cannot be foretold, and such it is just sports news. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - More references establishing long-term independent notability of this specific play here, here, here, and here. Torc2 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no doubt that it's notable. But notable enough for its own separate article? I doubt it. It's the key moment in the 2008 Super Bowl, just as the Immaculate Reception was to what might otherwise be called 1972 Steelers-Raiders AFC Divisional Playoff Game. Unlike the 1972 playoff, however, the 2008 Super Bowl game already has a name. I can appreciate that someone will want to be the one who gives the play a name that goes down in history. It's not always so. The Jets' upset of the Colts probably had a lot of would-be nicknames back in 1969, but the only one that stuck was "Super Bowl III". Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, there's "The Guarantee", which would be its own article if there was enough material on it, as there is for this article. Torc2 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Plenty of attention has been given to this particular play, and for good reason: it was the definitive play of one of the most improbable upsets in Super Bowl history. The sources that have been provided would seem to bear that out. It isn't going to suddenly become less significant tomorrow. This article needs to settle on a proper name, and it needs to be merged with its duplicate, but these problems can be solved without deletion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - One of the greatest plays in history. Deserves its own article. Mrprada911 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - an important and memorable Super Bowl play. If Wide Right and The Tackle can have their own articles, this play should have one, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Wide Right (Buffalo Bills) is notable because of its long-lasting impact and recognition, but the article we have on it is pitiful. It's unreferenced and does nothing to exhibit what it's meant to the city of Buffalo for 17 years. The play from Super Bowl XLII, on the other hand, has no such long-lasting impact and recognition because it only happened three days ago. Powers T 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Super Bowl XLII - not notable enough for it's own article. JPG-GR (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge - see WP:NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia:Recentism. This doesn't seem to me yet notable enough for its own page; hence, it shouldn't have its own article unless there's some evidence of long-term notability. A merge into the main Superbowl article might be best, as that way it can always be moved out again if it becomes independently notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as per User:JPG-GR above. - fchd (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per PowersT and Terraxos. It was a great play (the Eli avoiding sacks part, the pass was OK), but I am not convinced that it (or most plays) deserve their own articles. TJ Spyke 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep/Merge. The play will, in all eventuality, carry the exact same notable and historic context of any other number of plays in NFL history that have their own pages. The only problem right now is that 1) it has duplicate pages right now, and 2) it has no official name. To demand all deletions of this article is to be prejudiced to the opposite side. The precedent has already been set that extremely noteworthy plays in NFL history get their own page. To disallow the page to continue merely because it doesn't YET have historical relevance is the definition of stupidity. By acknowledging that it one day will, but does not now, you are saying that Wikipedia should never create ANY articles until we know of their exact relevance in history. This is why we have editing capabilities in the first place: to expand or shrink articles in accordance with their perceived historical relevance. To rid of it entirely is to not only ignore precedent, but to call into question the creation of ANY article shortly after the event in question takes place.President David Palmer (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. But now The Catch (2008) needs to be merged into this one as well. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and purge all versions of this article. It will certainly be part of NFL Lore, but for now, it should exist in Super Bowl XLII. When it achieves a commonplace name, and it becomes a burden on the Super Bowl XLII article, then split off. So no separate article for the time being.—Twigboy (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Super Bowl XLII, which seems to be the alternative suggested by people who are saying keep or delete, and the same with The Catch (2008), which hasn't been nominated. I find it interesting that the author, Stev1der urges that the article be kept because he is "a professional sports journalist". Without knowing who he is or where he works, that can't be verified. It makes 1 1-der. Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge my original article...links to my original post were deleted early into this process in order to facilitate merger, but my nine years experience in Texas and degree from a university in the state of Florida both support my 'claim' as a professional sports journalist...just to assure your 'concerns' over that 'verification'SteV1der (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into Super Boal XLII. Not enough notability for a separate article. You can also merge it into David Tyree, as he only had a few catches the entire season. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Super Bowl XLII. At some point it might need it's own article, but for now, it's just one part of a Super Bowl upset. Take the info and fold it into SB42, then spin it back off again if in the future, it becomes notable. The Catch wasn't immediately notable, if San Fran had lost that first Super Bowl i wouldn't be remembered by the general public at all. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

*Delete. Although this incident has longlasting notability, this is the wrong name for the article. A redirect isn't even required because it's an unexpected searh term. Eli Manning pass to David Tyree is the best article for this incident. The article name is correct and its well written. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, as it's now merged.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply My original article was much better written, but has been chopped up in too many ways to even be called my article. I see some copying done from my article in the one you speak, even in the articles used as reference. I'm starting to agree that this should just be deleted, since it bears such slight resemblence to the original, highly detailed article, that was, according to some posters on this afd site, too hard to understand for a normal readerSteV1der (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • DELETE First and foremost, this was the original article, so if anything, any other Manning-to-Tyree articles should be merged into this one, not the other way around. No other article existed at the time, which is why this one was created. Now, I've seen plenty of input decrying the opinion that this is 'just sports news' but I can tell you that 'sports news' is simply 'news about sports' and dismissing the importance of one such play would be like suggesting the FIFA World Cup isn't a big deal...especially since the Super Bowl was THE most watched sporting event in American history, I'd suggest this article stay until the New York Giants release an official name for that particular play...furthermore, suggesting that it won't be remembered is RIDICULOUS, considering that a number of noteworthy journalists have been slyly vying for naming rights, by doing the same thing that I did, naming it...it's been called The Catch 2, The Play, The Slip & Grip, The Scramble & Gamble, Manning-to-Tyree, The Giant Play, and a number of other things, some of which are already names, like The Play (Stanford/Cal) and The Catch (although the '2' indicates a sequel which already exists, and wouldn't do justice even if it were rightly sequeled The Catch 3, since names like Wide Right, Wide Right II, and Wide Right III all refer to games and plays involving the same two teams (Miami and FSU) and the same event (a missed field goal). The effort to give it a name is even being undertaken by a major newspaper and the discussion can be found [6], though the contest is set to end on Friday, February 8th, 20008. There also seem to be more than a few people trying to assert an elitist slant into these proceedings by suggesting that a length of time needs to pass before recognition of the worthiness of it's notability...I'd politely suggest that they've not been paying attention to media coverage of the event, perhaps because of the political proceedings of the past few days, of which, it should be pointed out, a name was given (Super Duper Tuesday), even though there is just as much proof and even less time passed that would lend the same notability they claim doesn't exist in the Super Bowl XLII play...wikipedia certainly has proven to me that there are a few people that think too highly of themselves to be credible judges of news of any kind, sports included, and the role it plays in society.SteV1der (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having articles about individual football games is borderline already, since such material is for the sports news, not an encyclopedia. However, since this is the Super Bowl final, watched by many, and one of the biggest sporting events in the US, I can accept the presence of that without much trouble. But this is not even an article about the game, it is about an event where a team scoring points in the game. It is getting to the absurd level of detail when we start having individual articles about each and every play in the game. This is like having an article on an individual goal in a football (soccer) match, an article about a single move of a chess game, an article about a particular strike-out it baseball. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The precedent has long since been established, Sjakkalle. Individual plays of an immense magnitude that will have notability for decades to come are certainly on good grounds for their own article. The chess analogy is poor at best because the popularity and visibility of such a move would always pale in comparison to that of a Super Bowl (a Super Bowl that, mind you, was watched by more viewers than any other in history). This says nothing of the fact that individual chess games, when they reach a level of notability DO get Wikipedia entries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_games). As for individual baseball plays? Well, there's an entire section on those, too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Baseball_lore). And individual plays in (American) football games? Take your pick: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Football_League_lore). Simple fact is that it was long ago decided that plays that reach an immense level of notoriety get their own article. Plays that become well enough known throughout history, and throughout the collective sports consciousness get their own articles. Why? Because of their cultural impact on millions of individuals who are both fans of the game, and non-fans.President David Palmer (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I can speak for the chess games category. It is not very large, which testifies to the fact that we generally don't hold them notable in the encyclopedia sense, and the articles are on games, not on individual moves. For this article, the "greatest move ever" looks like the kind of hype contemporary media are prone to commit. (But to alleviate any fears, I realize that the "keep" side is arguing on merit, even though I disagree with them. I don't think that my opinion, based on notability, should be used to overrule consensus.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. Just get all these articles together and merge them, but keep them separate from [[[Super Bowl XLII]]. Other major plays such as these (Miracle at the Meadowlands, The Catch, Immaculate Reception) have their own pages. All we need to do is come up with a universal name for this that almost everyone can agree upon. John cena123 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems likely that this play will attain the notoriety of the Immaculate Reception. TheMile (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe once it is notorious, then we can have an article on it. Until then, no. Powers T 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. You have entries for some of the other greatest plays in NFL history. This deserves to be among all of them. 02:53, 9 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.206.86 (talk)
  • Keep This was the greatest play in New York Giants history and arguably the greatest play in Super Bowl history. Tyree drops this ball and we have an article about the perfect 19-0 Patriots season. Anyone who wants this deleted knows nothing about football —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for personal attacks here. Give your opinion, but please be civil. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Play establishes notability. Wikipedia did not decide this - every sports media outlet has. The New York Daily News running a contest [7] to name the play satisfies any notability guideline. Not to mention the long discussions on ESPN and the NFL Network with the general consensus being that this is the number 1 play in NFL Super Bowl history.[8] --Endless Dan 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - will in all likelihood be one of the most memorable plays in NFL history. See also John Cena's list of other major plays. Of course, merge with Eli Manning pass to David Tyree —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If "notability" actually means what it claims to, this particular play has obviously received the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" prescribed by WP:"N" (a guideline which, mind you, should be taken with a grain of salt). More objectively, the article is neutral, verifiable, and maintainable. Keep and decide elsewhere how best to title it. — CharlotteWebb 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge with others on this same play. --Libertyernie2 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Precedent that football plays can pass notability has been established, this one has been called by at least one expert (NFL Film's Steve Sabol) the greatest in Superbowl history. The issue is the shear number of names and accounts for the play, due to how recent it is. Keep the article for now, wait for a consensus to emerge, then go back to it later for a 'merge' debate in order to decide which of the Manning to Tyree articles subsumes the others. Normalphil (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Amazing play, maybe merge to Super Bowl XLII article, but if Wide Right and The Tackle have their own articles, this is as deserving as those other plays are. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable play that many analysts have been talking about and will continue to talk about as a landmark play in Super Bowl history. There is much precedent for having notable plays in Wikipedia. White 720 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lasting notability not established (see WP:NOT#NEWS. Merge/redirect would give legitimacy to a neologistic title being pushed by journalist who authored it, since it would lead to an article and would therefore show up on Google searches. Mcmullen writes (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


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.