Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game

: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. Its clear that consensus is we should have at least some of the information currently in the article. Whether this should be merged, and to where, is something for another venue.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game]]=

{{notavote}}

:{{la|2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_Green_Bay_Packers%E2%80%93Seattle_Seahawks_game Stats])

:({{Find sources|2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game}})

  • Merge: I don't think this page meets WP:N guidelines. While this game was exciting and the last play was controversial, the game itself doesn't seem to warrant its own article. EDIT: After reading comments below I am switching from "Delete" to "Merge" since the article does contain encyclopedic material. EDIT2: Specifically, I think this (and all other controversial officiating incidents) should be added to a new article at 2012 NFL referee lockout. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: SGMD1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is being suggested to be merge to. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

:— Note to anyone reading the posts immediately preceding and immediately following this note: Y2kcrazyjoker4's opening comment below, "There's way more than 2", which appears to be coming out of nowhere (more than two what?) is actually an important reply, one which deflated SGMD1's claim above (since deleted by SGMD1 himself) that there are only two articles on Wikipedia dealing with single games. SGMD1 has since backed down from this claim, as can be seen in his comments below, but apparently did not recognize that by deleting his own words (instead of the more standard Wikipedia practice of striking them out) that he would have the unintended and unfortunate consequence of making a fellow editor look incoherent.HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

:— Note to closing admin: Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

::*My mistake, you're right, there are are 14. I know you created the article so you're obviously biased towards keeping it but there's no need to personally attack me. I'm just stating my opinion that it's presumptive, less than 20 hours after the conclusion of this game, to suggest that it has any lasting notability. I agree with Arxiloxos that some of the material in the article is certainly encyclopedic but probably belongs in 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. The only really notable event about this game is that the final call was disputed. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

:::*It wasn't meant as an attack, I'm just trying to say that having paid attention to this game throughout the news cycle today, it's making its rounds outside of sports, too, and seems to be quite notable. I mean, a [http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/09/sen_president_sweeny_moves_to.html#incart_river_default NJ state senator wants to introduce legislation banning replacement officials in NJ]. That's nuts. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Deletion is the wrong result here: at least some of the material is unquestionably appropriate for the encyclopedia, although perhaps not ultimately in this separate article. I'd suggest a keep for now, with an possible eye toward merging this into 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute or (if that section becomes too unwieldy) a spin-off article focused on the lockout. Unfortunately, there's every possibility of an even worse-officiated game next weekend. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

::Well, now it is less likely that there will be "an even worse-officiated game" since the lockout has now ended. It is possible, just less likely. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep:In my opinion...There is no reason to delete this article, as it is definitely one of the most controversial games in recent memory... User: OriolesMagic
  • Merge to referee controversy thing. WP does not have an article on every game, and the only thing special about this one is the controversy about the final play. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: If I'm a fan of the Packers or Seahawks, I would expect this article to appear as part of the team lore in that infobox on the bottom of the page. SigKauffman (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hold on to your shorts; there's no reason this needs to be decided immediately. If the lockout is resolved in the next 72 hours as a result of this game's horrific ending, then yes, it will gain lasting notability. To those who think this is an overreaction, I assure you, the coverage of this event on American TV has already exceeded that of any non-Super Bowl game of the last 20 years. And perhaps we'll end up not with an article on the game, but on the play. That would not be unprecedented. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

::In your own words, this game has "...gain[ed] lasting notability." However, is that enough just to keep one article? 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You guys want to be stubborn that's fine by me, I don't want to hear the crystal ball bs that you wikipedians like to throw around. The final play was not the only bad call of the game, it was a Monday Night Football game and had the biggest reaction for a regular season game from the country in NFL history. If you would like to merge it to the 2012 NFL season article and take up a quarter of that page with this game be my guess, it's clear that this WILL be an article down the road whether or not you guys decide to keep it. Not to mention the President of the United States talked about this football game and it cost $300 million in Las Vegas. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep: I agree with the guy above me. This game and play could have serious repercussions down the line for both teams. The Seahawks could get into the playoffs because of this one game or the Packers could miss the playoffs but more likely they could end up losing home field advantage because of this call. Rarely, if ever do you ever see one play of a regular season football game get coverage on so many non sports TV networks. This article should be called "Monday Night Controversy" as its usually refereed to that on the Sports Center "coming up" ticker on the left side of the broadcast. You guys can't give any valid reason why it shouldn't be an article --Rteixeira90 (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)— Rteixeira90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::There are multiple issues with what you're suggesting. First, the article can't be called "Monday Night Controversy" unless there's some sort of consensus amongst secondary sources referring to it that way. Secondly, strictly speaking, the game itself wasn't notable. The final referee call WAS notable though, and has implications for the referee dispute. Any implications/repercussions for the teams can easily be added to the teams' respective Wikipedia articles. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge - to 2012 NFL season for now, especially the referee controversy section, since the final play was the most notable part. ZappaOMati 01:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

: With the new page 2012 NFL referee lockout page being created, I suggest a redirect to 2012 NFL referee lockout#Week 3. ZappaOMati 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: Although the last play is getting most of the attention, the entire last drive by the Seahawks was horribly officiated by the referees as well as the game. If you had actually watched the game you would have seen that there was a phantom roughing the passer penalty on Erik Walden where Seahawks QB Russel Wilson threw an interception that would have ended the game. Then you also have the Pass Interference penalty where CB Sam Shields was called for even though it was obviously against the Seahawks' Sidney Rice which both Jon Gruden and Mike Tirico disagreed with during the game. --Rteixeira90 (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions. I saw the plays, they were egregious errors, but Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or post them. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

:::Dude he can say what ever he wants, it's the article that you can not post personal opinions, go climb a tree. Thanks ~--Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::::OK, calm down. I was saying that personal opinions not pertaining to interpretations of Wikipedia policies probably shouldn't be considered in arguments regarding deletion and notability of articles. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::I know what you meant but he beliefs on that game are the same as the media, a lot of players, and coaches. Tirico and Gruden disagreed with a lot of calls in that game, that is not a personal opinion. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::::::All right, and I was saying that Wikipedia is/should be based primarily on facts, not opinions. I apologize if my comments implied otherwise. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Strongest keep possible This game has created a huge uproar regarding the replacement refs. It's generated a ton of media coverage. I fail to see how this could possibly fail to be notable. AutomaticStrikeout 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::No, the game has not created a huge uproar. The call at the end of the game has created a huge uproar. This is a very important distinction. If this article is about the game itself, it requires a lot of information that simply isn't notable (i.e. the description of the first 59 minutes, 59 seconds of the game.) SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

:::This is an honest question not meant to troll, etc.: How do you get around WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which states that Wikipedia assesses the enduring notability of a subject? Do you think that solely this play will be remembered, or the collection of bad officiating? Personally, I'd say it's the collection and that's why I support merging it. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::::To clarify my position, there needs to be some kind of article directly dealing with at least the ending of this game. Perhaps it would be best to rename the article and focus it on the final play. However, having information about the earlier part of the game is beneficial in the sense that it would give the readers some context. AutomaticStrikeout 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::::Completely agree with your assessment, Go Phightins! SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep/Rename and Comment According to what I am reading, the problem with the article is that it is important for only one play in the game which is why it should be merged. However, this leads us to a problem over several other articles. The Music City Miracle is only important for one play, which was first ruled a touchdown, was considered inconclusive to overturn the touchdown which upheld the ruling on the field, and was controversal. Several of the articles on the games in the National Football League lore were created because of the result of a single play. The last play of the Miracle at the Meadowlands and the following reaction is why the article was given notability. As SGMD1 has suggested about the article, maybe the article should be renamed and written in a manner similar to how the Clock Play (A game in Week 12 of the 1994 season between Miami Dolphins and New York Jets) and The Helmet Catch (From Super Bowl XLII in the 2007 season) were created and then decide if that is enough for the article to stand on its own or should it still be merged. If we just merge it, we might have to evaluate several other games that are only famous for the last play of the game. In addition, this might be brought back up in future years if the game or the play become lore or ends up being notable in future seasons. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Second Comment I should have added it here instead of at the bottom, but we now have to debate if being the last game before the end of the lockout and the game that mainly helped to end the lockout are notable enough to keep this article. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge, with the obvious target being the article on the current season (as well as the articles on the current Packers and Seahawks seasons). A standalone article isn't needed, but given the incredible firestorm this kicked up, it should be discussed somewhere. Just not as its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, you are saying to merge the article and the Packers and Seahawks articles with the NFL 2012 season article. If so, could you explain why the Packers and Seahawks articles need to be merged as well since I do not understand why that would be needed as well. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

:::They seemed like a reasonable partial merge target. The main part would probably go into the article on the ref dispute, but since the game's outcome might have an effect on whether or not those two teams make the playoffs, it seems like it would be worth merging some content there. And even if it doesn't have an effect on their playoff chances, its still an important event in the narrative of their respective seasons. 03:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: We need to create a more general article regarding the referee labor dispute, which would encompass not only the specific issues in the lockout, but all games that were affected by controversial calls made by the replacement referees. Although the end of the Packers-Seahawks game generated much media attention, it has not been the "tipping point" to end the lockout, and so the replacement officials are still continuing to work – which possibly would result in other controversial games like this one. If that happens, are we going to just create article after article about each of these games? I would say no. This is just a symptom of the overall problem with the lockout: the league hired high school and lower level college officials as replacements, with little or no experience at the professional level. This would be best served with one article. In fact, a discussion has also started on 2012 NFL season#Possible split? for this issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep; I'm an ardent Green Bay fan who's still stunned from the utterly retarded calls leading up to this, and I'd love for this to be deleted and forgotten about. That said, it's generated so much media attention that this genie is out of the lamp, and no amount of effort will stuff it back in. That said, I think Zzyzx11 is right above that the focus needs to be shifted a bit towards the broader dispute with the NFL officials and less on the game, as that's why there's been such an uproar (and why the Packers got the wool pulled over their eyes; can't help but vent a bit). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • :To clarify my position: If a more broader article regarding the referee labor dispute is in fact created, then I would support a merge. As alluded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_NFL_season&diff=509540017&oldid=509202507 one of the quotes] I added to the 2012 NFL season back in August, and several articles I saw before the regular season began, many sports writers were worried that a bad call by these inexperienced replacements might cost a team a win. And now the Packers are the first 'victims'. But since the labor dispute still continues, there is a good chance that there will be other teams who might also suffer by a controversial game-ending call, and so I do not want page after page spawning all over the place when it all relates back to the lockout. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ::I now change my position to Keep since this is now cited as the significant game and the play which helped to end the referee lockout. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the first place I went to find out about this news item. Years from now, sports fans will still be talking about this. And I'm not a sports fan. — Xiong熊talk* 07:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::You said it yourself - this is a news item. Wikipedia is not news. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 12:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::And you should doublecheck your WP:CRYSTAL ball before saying we will care about this "years from now". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Really? An article for what some people believed was a bad call? There have benn plenty of bad calls in the NFL, why this one?JOJ Hutton 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The level of national media coverage make this a clearly notable game. --Falcorian (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep even in just a couple days this game has already had a lasting impact on the desire of players and fans for the NFL and regular officials to end their labor dispute. Frank AnchorTalk 16:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I decided to be bold and spawn a new article from 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute to 2012 NFL referee lockout. As you can see there is an Officiating incidents section. I'd like to reiterate that I think the game itself is not notable; only the final play and the referees' ruling is - and only in the context of the labor dispute and use of the replacement officials. If this game wasn't using replacement officials and this had happened, I am very skeptical that anyone would think this game deserved a separate article. tl;dr I think this article should be merged into the Officiating incidents section of 2012 NFL referee lockout. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The NFL and the refs are close to reaching a settlement in the lockout. Richiekim (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

::That may be, but I'd ask you what I asked another editor above...is it this specific game that is going to be remembered or the collection of poor officiating. I think it's the collection and therefore I support moving it to the new page SGMD1 just created. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

:::That could be true, but now there is the fact that this is now notable for being the last game before the lockout ended due in part to it. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:::I remember few lockouts. I do, however, remember many notable plays in sports history. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 18:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete The game itself is not notable. The deciding play is important but only in the context of the referee lockout, which has its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sigh this article shouldn't have been created too early. Currently there is much outrage in the sports world about the result of this game, and the blown call. Probably every major NFL journalist are calling for the league to settle this mess and bring back the normal referees just because of the result of this game. If that happens in the next few days, this game clearly deserves a separate article, or a at least a merge to 2012 NFL referee lockout as it is currently being called one of the strangest and most controversial games in NFL history, plus its going to be one of those games that is going to have a lasting impact in the league for years to come. But if they can't settle this lockout mess, and more blown games happens, then we stuck in the dilemma Zzyzx11 explains above. I'll say Merge for now as the legacy of the game is clearly in WP:CRYSTAL territory as of this moment. Secret account 22:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that the strike has ended, Bagumba is right, unless the 2012 NFL referee lockout becomes too big to maintain, a merge is the course of action. I'm fine with everything but a delete, and we should discuss this further in the article talk page. Secret account 06:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I will point out that your original reply says that "If [the end to the lockout] happens in the next few days, this game clearly deserves a separate article..." and "...its going to be one of those games that is going to have a lasting impact in the league for years to come." However, your second reply seems to be different than your original message. Does that mean that you are striking out that part of your original message? 204.106.251.214 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reading upon it further the legacy of this game so far is that the blown call helped ended the referee strike much quicker than earlier but anything else is very unclear and thus the WP:CRYSTAL I was talking about. If it leads to more implications, like for example like Paul said below the handling of any future strikes by officials or players and it starts getting mentioned as one of the most important games in NFL history, a separate article is clear cut. But right now, the parent page 2012 NFL referee lockout is still maintainable and merging seems like the proper call until anything else happens. Sorry for the confusion, if the article is kept I wouldn't mind it, though a separate discussion should be made in the article talk page, and not here. Honestly this is a candidate for speedy keep as the person created the AFD wanted to discuss a merge, which is improper use of the AFD policy. Secret account 09:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Legacy seems clearer now Keep but rename Secret account 06:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep there will be changes to the NFL in rules and handling of strikes for years to come based on the outcome of this and other similar games. Is that a crystal ball? Nope. It's preparation for both current and future references.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment 2012 NFL referee lockout has 10K of readable prose. WP:SPINOUT says articles may possibly need to be divided after 50K. With 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game being only 5K, there does not appear to be a reason to spinout now, especially when WP:SPINOUT says "there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage."—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Another addendum from the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "If a concept can be cleanly trimmed or removed, or can be merged elsewhere on the wiki, these steps should be undertaken first before some new article is created."—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to mention that this game in now also notable for being the last game to be played before the lockout ended on Wednesday in the United States. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - The implications and media reverberations indicate that this game was highly eventful and influential for the 2012 NFL season. For the time being, I would like to see this article develop further, as there are new pieces of information and reactions continuing to flow. DarthBotto talk•cont 07:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge over to the lockout article. The game itself is unremarkable but for that context - had we had normal refs, even in the face of a similarly blown call the issue would not have blown up as it did here. I would not object to a keep, honestly, but I believe a merge to be the better option. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge Its fairly clear that every game is not notable and only the call itself was notable for the firestorm it ignited. If this passed AFD, I say keep all the other data, otherwise do the call and the reactions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

::For clarification, if an article is based only on a single call or play, then it should be deleted? (Remember the articles that are linked on NFL lore can be considered to be this and could be subjected to deletion or a merge based on the results of this AfD in some cases.) 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

:::"All or nothing" is not appropriate, as different plays have their own merits for being kept or deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

:::*True, but right now the "Mud Bowl" is currently facing an AfD concurrently with this discussion due to this which I agree with. My point is that not all articles are notable, yet several are more notable than others. Currently, this article is notable for several things: A famous/infamous play (4th and 26, the Tuck Rule Game among others), a game that helped bring an end to a lockout (no other games that I know of), a game with a final play that was decided the game by the decision of a referee or a review (Immaculate Reception, Music City Miracle, etc.), and a game that will likely have consequences in the future(Currently covered by WP:CRYSTAL at the moment.) This makes at least three points of notablility at the moment which is more than some articles. In addition, I would say that there has been significant coverage by several different organizations and corporations with extensive media coverage focused on just one game. For the quality of the article, we have kepted 4th and 26 for what I would say loose reasons at the time of the creation of the article and it has been improved and expanded on since. However, the article is only notable for a famous last play and for preventing the Packers from making the NFC Championship game. I feel that the "Golden Reception," or whatever the article will be renamed IF it is kepted, has enough reasons to be kepted as it passes WP:N. Right now there is WP:NORUSH, yet the creation of this discussion might have been rushed a bit. Prior to the creation of this discussion, we did not know what would happen with the lockout and right now we do not know how this will affect the playoff system of the NFL for this season for the next few weeks. Thus, this discussion was created as it did not seem to be notable enough at the time based on the opinions of others. Looking back, it feels to myself like this might have been rushed as there was no wait to see what this would do to the lockout. However, SGMD1 was correct to put this to discussion as the article was created before its notablilty could be thought about. Despite that, I will say that this article has also met WP:N(E) as the game has had national impact and has been covered by several sources. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this game has had an impact and reaction that has gone past it. The main point of Wikipedia is not a newspaper against this article is that Wikipedia assess the importance of an event, yet as I have explain, I believe that this article has reached notability. To me, this debate seems to be an argument over WP:RECENTISM. Despite this being the first mention of it one this page, which is a bit surprising to me, the discussion as a whole has been based on how we did not know if the article would be notable enough since it has been a short period of time. However, as time has passed since the game and the event of it, we have learned more about the effects of the game on other events. At the time of the creation of the article, there was no way to know for sure that it would lead to the end of the lockout. Now, we can have a perspective view on how the play has had a lasting effect on the end of the lockout. Right now, we do not have a perspective view on how this game will affect the playoffs of the 2012 season. Yet, in a few months we will be able to see what this game did or did not do to change the results of the playoffs. Despite this lack of knowledge, does that mean the article should not exist over how we do not know how this will impact the playoffs? We may not have a full perspective view, but we do have notability. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

::::In addition, I would like to say sorry to Bagumba since it seems that I have taken my reply to them and turned it into an argument for why it should exist. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - Per the "Impact on referee lockout" section. If it ended the lockout, it should be notable! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There are many incidents at 2012 NFL referee lockout#Officiating incidents that led to this play being the tipping point. We would need to summarize/duplicate all that in this article to achieve due WP:WEIGHT and provide proper context to the play/game. This is a relative small article once all the non-notable stats (only the final play is notable) and gratuitous use of quotations are summarized per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. No prejudice to recreate if the play ends up being remembered with little connection to the lockout in the future.—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge - There is nothing particularly notable about this game as a whole, just the one play at the end that highlighted the incompetence of the replacement refs. The whole incident relates to the debacle surrounding the ref lockout, so the content relating to that farcical play should be merged to an article that covers the ref lockout. – PeeJay 19:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my comment a few days ago[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_Green_Bay_Packers%E2%80%93Seattle_Seahawks_game&diff=514566815&oldid=514566270], I said to those who questioned the lasting notability of this game that its notability would be secured if it led to a settlement within 72 hours. Well it did. The only reasonable grounds remaining for objecting to this article as a stand-alone would be to say (as some have) that it is the play itself, as opposed to the game in toto that is notable. I can be down with that. So I think we should either keep this or make it an article (such as Fail Mary pass) on the play. But this is not something to be just merged into the lockout article (or the season article, as some would apparently do). HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

::I agree that if this article doesn't get merged to 2012 NFL referee lockout (which I think it should), then a name change is in order, but I have strong objections with changing the name to "Fail Mary pass". While having that as a redirect is fine, making it the actual title of the article is a no-go due to its bias and lack of universal acceptance as the primary nickname for the play. But we'll come to that when the time comes. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Agree with SGMD's comment above that Fail Mary pass does not meet the apparent requirements for an article title. I've also seen sources using Grand Theft Football and several other names for the play. In fact, I suspect that, just as there was never a coalescence around a single name for the most amazing play of Super Bowl 42 (thus we ended with Eli Manning pass to David Tyree as a title), the same could be true here. Perhaps Golden Tate disputed touchdown reception or other some such awkward name would be best. Or, we could just keep it simple by keeping the current title, with recognition given to the fact that the single games notability comes from this single play. HuskyHuskie (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. I admit the article title doesn't quite fit, it's only the final play that was controversial. But the aftermath of this play ended the Referee Lockout within a few days, got the President of the United States to comment on it, and could change the entire playoff picture. This is one of the most controversial, and influential, plays in NFL history. It deserves an article (with a better title). ARSchmitz (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The fateful play will go down in football history, even more so now that it became the straw that broke the camel's back, the event that at last fed everybody up so much that the NFL finally came to their senses and ended the lockout. As stated above, if there are similar articles about single games with close/exciting/controversial endings, I see no reason why this article should not be allowed to stay, and even less do I see any ways it would potentially violate WP:Notability.
    RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 00:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

::Well, this was created on September 25, the day after the game. At the time, the lockout was still ongoing and other games were expected to be affected by similar decisions. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep — Although I will admit that the article was created too early, it is now a valuable article about a subject that is notable, as numerous public officials (including President Obama) commented on it, it is probably the worst call in NFL history, and it directly caused the NFL to end the referee lockout immediately. Many other pieces of NFL lore have their own articles, so why not this one? --HGK745 (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

::To answer your question regarding why not this one, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

:::I think a better argument would be to say that this is a combination of having WP:OSE and being WP:N. In other words, the other articles that have been listed has given a precedent that can be used for this article when combined with the notability of the article. I will redirect you to my reply to Bagumba as to why I believe this is notable. (I would rather not go off onto a lengthy comment if I can help it.) 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

:Strong keep — I believe this is a notable article. There seems to be significant coverage as shown in the 32 sources from multiple news and other media sources. It looks like all the sources come from reliable media companies. Most of the sources come from secondary and independent source. This article is to big to put into 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. Kingjeff (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep and move to Fail Mary. This is clearly a significant play and ruling, as discussed above. The article should be refocused on what makes it notable -- the final play of the game -- and renamed to reflect that. This jibes with other team lore about well-remembered sequences and plays within single games. See The Drive and The Fumble, for example. --Batard0 (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously notable and not even worth discussing. Everyking (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

::While I agree with your position on the article, I am reasonable enough to know that honest, intelligent people can still disagree with me on an issue, and that narrow-minded persons with the intellectual maturity of a five-year old may be found on my side of a debate. Please do not insult people who come to this page for the purpose for which it was created. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment The article was created early (September 25) in anticipation of its impact, and the AfD was opened the same day. Since then, the 2012 NFL referee lockout ended on September 26 and a play in this game has cited as a reason. I personally would have added this to the lockout article, following WP:AVOIDSPLIT until it was time to WP:SPINOUT. One week after the game is too soon to be conclusive of it's long-term WP:EFFECT. It is likely to be notable, and the article here already exists and is reasonable sourced. While I originally supported a move, I'd probably just wait a few months to determine if anything needs to be done to this article based on its notability and size of this article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • SO EVERY GAME THAT HAS A "BLOWN" REFEREE CALL SHOULD NOW GET A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.66.70 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

::No, not every "Saying that a call is blown depends on the opinion of the person. Wikipedia trys to be netural so blown is not just a valid reason for an article." gets an article. Articles are kepted if they can be proven to at least be notable along with a few case-by-case things. If you would like to you are allowed to try to prove why you think this article should not exist, as SGMD1 had originally argued, or should be merged. I would recommend looking at the "List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates" and "Arguments to make in deletion discussions." 204.106.251.214 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, with no prejudice against a rename - Very clear keep at this point as it was the catalyst to end a labor dispute, and the media coverage was significant. The original intent and timing of this nomination was appropriate, but at this point notability is established.Toa Nidhiki05 23:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to 2012 NFL season#Referee labor dispute. The game is not notable outside of the labor dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 3 October 2012 (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.