Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Manning sweepstakes

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, WP:SNOW, consensus is clear. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Manning sweepstakes

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

This is a list of rehashed speculation from news sources about which team might sign Peyton Manning. Fails to satisfy WP:NOT#NEWS. Terence7 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most significant information can be merged into the article on Peyton Manning. However, this isn't likely to be a search term nor an enduring topic. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just plain unencyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your personal sports blog, which is what this reads as. Also as all have said already, NOTNEWS. Nate • (chatter) 04:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not one to invoke WP:NOTNEWS very often, but this time it fits. Encyclopedic information about this topic belongs in concise form in the bio article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That article doesn't belong on wikipedia due to the fact that the article is 100% speculation and speculation doesn't belong on wikipedia--Rockchalk717 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late addition, it's also completely unsourced--Rockchalk717 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced neologism, essentially. Any information about where Manning ends up belongs in the article about him and that team. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS is sometimes misapplied as a reason to delete, but not in this case. It states, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion" - the Manning scenario is two of those things. Although Manning is a high-profile player, this is mostly just routine player movement and any relevant information can be covered more efficiently in the Peyton Manning article. However the article does have sources as of right now, and the term "Manning sweepstakes" is being used fairly often[1] so I wonder if it might be worth a redirect of some sort. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there are no backlinks, and that Manning's free agency is not notable, I would disagree with a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recentism at its most embarassing. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very slight merge to Peyton Manning. The fact that various teams sought to sign Manning after the Colts released him could eventually be worth about one sentence in that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peyton Manning is notable. This article is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as not encyclopedic and WP:SNOW. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and can we SNOW this yet?) I feel like I predicted this. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Article has been renamed to 2012 release of Peyton Manning. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.