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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harbaugh Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing particularly notable about this game, there are many games with the same kind of storyline (brothers playing against each other). Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Was not a typical game. Was a first of its kind more many reasons. Prior to this game, there had never been a game played between two head coaches who were brothers. That's what makes it so unusual. Even if there are more matchups between the two brothers, which is possible, this will always stand out as the first. WP:SPORTSEVENT states Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats, and this article meets that requirement. Hellno2 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The question here is whether the game is notable. The fact that it may have "well-sourced prose" doesn't make it notable. It just means that the article isn't total garbage worthy of speedy deletion. Terence7 (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The "notable games" in the guideline you cited refers to the ones listed immediately above. This game is not notable per that guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Interesting, but still only trivia. There's nothing special about this game except for the fact the head coaches are brothers. What about the several games between Eli and Peyton Manning? Virtually every week there's an interesting "first" in the NFL. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. If there were some greater significance in this game as a result of the coaches, it would be one thing. As-is, the article is just a recap of an everyday game, and the distinction of the coaches is just trivia. —Ed!^(talk) 23:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes general notability guideline and is well sourced with independent reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because there was coverage in reliable sources doesn't guarantee that it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, as the general notability guideline acknowledges. The problem here is that this game doesn't meet the standards of notability for events. Lasting effects? Hardly. Duration of coverage? Nope. Also, per WP:ROUTINE, "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. ... Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." That's certainly the case here: a mention of the so-called "Harbaugh Bowl" on each brother's biographical article would be more than sufficient. Terence7 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wrathchild. cmadler (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was heavy reliable sources that you can find, and the fact that this game is rare in that brothers have faced off against each other as coaches is definitely notable. This has never happened before. As Hellno2 said, WP:SPORTSEVENT states that Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats, and this game doesn't have just stats, as there was notability, and reliable sources, especially since this game was heavily covered. ZappaOMati (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Zappa[reply]

(1) Rarity does not equate to notability. (2) I reiterate: the fact that the article (arguably) has "well-sourced prose" does NOT mean it is notable. In other words, "well-sourced prose" does not make the subject notable. The question of notability is separate. "Well-sourced prose" is a requirement for articles that are inherently notable, independent of the quality of the writing. Terence7 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets all notability requirements. Unlike Eagles247 says, WP:SPORTSEVENT is a notability guideline, and this article meets that. There are numerous media sources that refer to this game as the "Harbaugh Bowl" too. Stedrick (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Which bullet from WP:SPORTSEVENT does it meet? Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:ROUTINE game coverage per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a WP:routine game that fails SPORTEVENT. Some of the info might be placed in article on the two brothers (I'm talking like one sentence here), but that's about it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This AfD presents the question: what quantum of notability is necessary for an article about a single regular-season NFL game? In some sense, every NFL game could be said to pass WP:GNG, since there's always plenty of contemporaneous coverage and then almost always further coverage later in the season and afterward. But we clearly don't want a separate article on every game, so we have to have some understanding of what sorts of games are unusual enough to qualify for their own article. Category:National Football League games has only 14 entries, at least two of which are currently being reviewed at AfD. The other games on the list tend to have truly famous plays (e.g., River City Relay, Miracle at the Meadowlands). There are others in other categories, such as the Heidi Game which is categorized under Category:National Football League controversies. Somewhat subjectively, I don't think the Harbaugh game comes up to this level: nothing all that memorable really happened, and there are plenty of other games between brothers. If, a year or five from now, it turns out that people really are still writing about the game, we could reconsider, but for now it seems enough to talk about the game in the Harbaughs' biographies and in the season articles for the teams, where it will be discussed anyway. I will say this, however: if Manning Bowl (also currently at AfD) is kept, there'd be a better argument that this one should be too. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to the WP:ROUTINE argument -- the sources cited and many others are more than just listing of sports scores and statistics, as pointed out in the "routine" argument. The guideline also points out that WP:INDEPTH coverage can be enough to sustain notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDEPTH says that in-depth coverage is necessary to sustain notability, not that it is sufficient to sustain notability. Terence7 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I stated "can be enough" instead of "is enough" but thanks for clarifying.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Side comment I would not be opposed to changing the title of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, specifically, WP:SPORTSEVENT. WP:CFB and WP:NFL editors need to stop inventing cutesy articles for topics such as this. This deserves one or two sentences, if anything, in the respective bio articles of the Harbaugh brothers, nothing more . . . and certainly not a stand-alone article of 2,500+ words and five photos recycled from other articles (none of which were actually taken during the subject games). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and retitle The rivalry between the two brothers is notable. The word "bowl" implies a single game, and they have played multiple games, plus been compared in other ways (e.g. Super Bowl wins). Hellno2 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]