Lunatic Lateral : In general, we only make football articles for plays that will be remembered for a long time, such as Miracle at the New Meadowlands .  While a successful lateral for a game winning touchdown would be notable ( Miracle in Miami ), a failed lateral is likely not notable.  While the game did have minor playoff implications (Dolphins clinched the postseason over the Patriots), it had very little lasting effect.  I could only find one source describing the event following the immediate aftermath.  Since the bar for a football article seems to be very high, this is likely unsuitable for an article and is better contained in 2022 Las Vegas Raiders season and 2022 New England Patriots season .  12.74.238.84 ( talk ) 22:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Processing AfD for IP per request .  SkyWarrior 15:30, 28 January 2024 Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , American football ,  and Nevada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning redirect to the 2022 New England Patriots season (as the play impacted them more) rather than a weak keep though there has been some coverage about the play in 2023.  [19] [20] Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I think you have to look at why the failed lateral was so notable.  It wasn't just any failed lateral, but an absurd, ill-advised play committed by what had recently been one of the most successful teams in league history.  This inevitably resulted in extensive coverage in the immediate aftermath.  Multiple sources dubbed it one of the "dumbest" or "worst plays in NFL history", comparing it to other "bloopers" such as the Butt Fumble and Colts Catastrophe .  I also added a couple more sources that cited this play in 2023 well after the play's aftermath, including one covering the ending of the 2023 ReliaQuest Bowl and comparing it to this play.  Hopefully that helps address nom's concern.  WuTang94 ( talk ) 18:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there was plenty of coverage of the play (separate from game summaries) at the time and it continued to get coverage in 2023.   As WuTang94 explained, it was not just a simple failed play but a substantial blooper.   Perhaps in time memory of the play will fade and it will not be mentioned again, in which case there may be a case at the time that this did not have as lasting an impact as some of us think it does.   But for now I am not seeing a valid deletion rationale.  Rlendog ( talk ) 15:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Beyond coverage in late 2022 and early 2023, there is no talk about this play.  I don't think it's had sustained coverage...  We could mention it briefly in articles about that season for each team Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This play did receive enough coverage as a standalone event that an article on Wikipedia still seems suitable.  The play received both standalone coverage and dominant coverage in relation to the game in both sports journalism (e.g: Fox Sports , Sports Illustrated , ESPN ) and the sports section of national newspapers (e.g: AP , USA Today , who ranked it alongside other infamous plays with Wikipedia pages, LA Times ).  The event even received late 2023 coverage courtesy of the Las Vegas Review Journal and Sports Illustrated , highlighting the event as an example of the Patriots' downfall that season and beyond.  This play also had an impact beyond the day itself, as the likelihood (per FiveThirtyEight) of the Patriots making it to the offseason fell to below 20% compared to being above 50% prior to the game.  As what WuTang94 commented above, the play itself was a major fluke from a team that was once dominant in the league, and it's a play that has received the cycle of coverage WP:LASTING requires: Coverage of the event, its immediate aftermath, and discussion long afterward, in a variety of topic-driven and national sources.  MooseMike ( talk ) 23:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] UTC) Keep .  Multiple writers have regarded the play as one of the worst in NFL history (with some people comparing the play to the infamous Butt Fumble), and had the Patriots won this game, they would have made the playoffs instead of Miami.  Even though much of the coverage of the play occurred in the immediate aftermath of the game, it was still talked about well after it occurred.  For example, in the 2023 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, Virginia's ill-advised turnover elicited comparison's to Jakobi Meyers' lateral.  This is not to mention that the play signaled a symbolic end to the Patriots as we knew them, as they have been downright dreadful since that game.  2600:100E:A020:B376:CCB6:A836:9818:691A ( talk ) 05:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Patriots weren’t good since Brady left.  2020 was a worse year for them then 2022.  And yes while they would’ve made the playoffs over Miami, the end result is likely the same: playoff loss to Buffalo.  Saying this play made the Patriots bad is false, especially when they won Week 17 vs Miami and also had a close loss against Cincinatti, one of the best teams in football that year.  You cannot compare a basketball play to a football play seriously.  Maybe it has some lasting coverage but not enough for a standalone article. -- 2603:3003:4802:5F00:D059:EC1D:21C9:6D9E ( talk ) 17:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Editors in support of deleting or redirecting the page argued that there was not WP:LASTING significance of this play, or alternatively that while there was some nominally continued coverage, such coverage ended in early 2023.  And while there is plenty of coverage from March 2023 on the aftermath of this play and how it affected Meyers, in addition to the uncontested swarm of coverage this got at the time it occurred in December 2022, it isn't true that early 2023 was the end of this event's significant coverage.  Even in Autumn 2023, I was able to find multiple examples of WP:CONTINUED significant coverage of this event.  As for WP:LASTING , I think the notability here comes from WP:EVENTCRIT #3 (not WP:EVENTCRIT #1 which involves lasting effects), where we're asked to consider a much broader analysis.  And that we've got WP:INDEPTH coverage that has WP:CONTINUED well after the event itself from diverse reliable sources makes me lean towards keeping this here.  I do think that there is some enduring notability of this play, as such, and I lean towards keeping this.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep