Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/49ers–Raiders rivalry

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. ✗plicit 23:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

49ers–Raiders rivalry

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Minimal resources for a concurrent rivalry, poor citations, and a lack of relevance particularly as the 49ers and Raiders often saw success at fluctuating times of their respective histories, the only notable moment of animosity came during several preseason and regular season brawls between fans, very little actually links the two teams to build animosity towards one another, especially in the present times. The reference page only lists one outdated article from Bleacher Report declaring the two teams as rivals, most of the articles supporting animosity between the two just revolve around the fan misconduct and the two teams cancelling preseason games. PontiacAurora (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rivalry in professional sports is more a fan phenomenon than one that involves the players, but it's worldwide. Consider the reputation that English football hooligans have, for example. A rivalry between groups of fans is still a rivalry, and reports of fan misconduct are a demonstration of the rivalry's notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rivalry is likely to fade somewhat with the Raiders now across a state line, but N doesn't expire just because a natural inter-city rivalry does. Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage that speaks of the rivalry such as [1][2][3]. Alvaldi (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I usually dislike rivalry articles for teams that are not in the same division. With that said, I do believe that this is a demonstrated and recognized rivalry, and that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG and a lack of valid deletion rationale. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as in the case of Rams–Vikings rivalry AfD vote, I believe that this article deserves to stay due to its obvious notability. I agree with the arguments on that above and because of that won't reiterate those twice.Rodgers V (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per what looks like a misunderstanding or unawareness from the nominator of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Frank Anchor 15:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, it passes WP:GNG and has significant coverage. As per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, a subject/topic etc does not need to have ongoing coverage once it has had significant coverage, which applies to this rivalry. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2023 (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.