Deletion of 2015 College Football Championship Game

Comment: I do not believe this is too soon at all.  Information on the 2014 season has already begun, including coaching changes, recruiting, etc.  Bowl schedules are being assembled and locations are being named.  ESPN and other sportswriters have even made predictions on who will win this game.  And since this game is the culmination of the 2014 season (played in January 2015) I believe that removing it would be bad. Further, more than enough has been written in the media about this game already that it clearly passes , the general notability guideline.  So much has gone in to the preparation of this game in the media that it could have been created a year ago and would still have passed  even then
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: In addition to my '''Keep''' above, I would also support '''Redirect''' if that would help put an end to this.  For those arguing applying the policies here very strictly, please keep in mind that most rules allow exceptions per common sense and/or consensus. The policy page containing  explicitly allows exceptions per the link to Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Use_common_sense in the first box at the top
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: This is pretty much the definition of a tempest in a teacup. There is no question that this event will be notable at some point, so the question just becomes, when? As noted by Jweiss11, this article is part of the 2014 NCAA Division I FBS football season. The so-called "one-year rule" has been a long-standing compromise at the CFB project between those who favor a strict interpretation of , and those who actually write and work on these articles. From what I can see, the "one-year rule" or at least similar variations to it, seems to be widely used by other sports projects, as well. Remember, there is no rush, and |there is no deadline. A year from now, this debate is going to look very silly, and we're all going to look like idiots for actually wasting our precious time arguing about it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: I already supported keeping above, but have not actively been involved in discussion since, and wanted to take a moment to note that I agree with pretty much all of {{u|Paulmcdonald}}'s points in ensuing discussion. The bottom line is that the article meets , as it has received significant coverage from a variety of sources including, but not limited to, ESPN, various newspapers, including widely read ones, and other online sports sites who are reporting information on the game such as tickets and items of that nature, speculating on who may be in the game, disseminating various secondary details on the game, such as the ones Paul listed above. Moreover, the article ''does not'' violate WP:CRYSTAL, as the event is almost certain to happen and there are reliable sources covering it. Finally, it is in accordance with long-standing project consensus, the "one-year rule", which has been the unwritten policy of most sports wiki-projects with which I have been involved
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Aside from knowing it is scheduled, we know nothing of value. This is a case of  in my opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)