Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major football rivalries

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 speedy keep. per nomination withdrawal JForget 14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major football rivalries[edit]

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

Major football rivalries what does that mean? 0 inclusion criteria. What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn for now as at least one user is making a serious attempt to define the scope of this article here . I'd suggest all who support keeping this article join this discussion . Note while I've withdrawn this nomination for now if there is no improvement in a short time I will renominate Gnevin (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination reasons: article has unclear and unverifiable scope and inclusion criteria and is therefore not encyclopedic content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - the article in its current state is full of POV, but many rivalries are referenced. If it became List of association football rivalries or equivalent I could see the benefits of keeping it. Giant Snowman 08:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely against this but I would need to see some inclusion criteria before supporting it. I mean the 2 local pubs teams in my area have a nice friendly rivalry going Gnevin (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of inclusion criteria is not a reason to delete; you can discuss on the article talk page. The main inclusion criteria on WP however is simple: if it's sourced, it goes in. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information aka lack of inclusion criteria is a reason for deletion Gnevin (talk)

No. This only means that the list ought to have inclusion criteria. It doesn't mean that the topic of the list is not notable or not worth an article -it only means that, to comply with WP:NOT, we have to discuss what is the inclusion criteria. But in this case it is extremly simple to get a first objective inclusion criteria: being featured in WP:RS. So, no indiscriminate collection. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but move any unique content to Local derby or derivatives such as country-specific lists. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many major rivalries are not local derbies (Real Madrid/Barcelona being the obvious example) so merging to local derby wouldn't be a good idea. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. Too many good reasons given by article's supporters for me to continue advocating deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is nearly 200 KB long. Ridiculous! If this article isn't deleted, it absolutely needs some sort of discerning inclusion criteria to prevent it from being so long. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with perhaps a rename and a pruning. Very notable topic (just look at a gscholar or gbooks search). If the article got away from just being a list of different rivalries with more of an exploration of the topic in general then it would probably be better, but I do not see a reason to delete. Quantpole (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is to be kept it obviously needs some clear inclusion criteria. However, what I would suggest is restructure this article to be about football rivalries in general, commonalities between rivalries, how they originated, that sort of thing, and then move the content from the article, with some rewritting to make it more NPOV, to regionalised lists, sorted either by country or by content. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable topic which can be well referenced -see for example a full article here about the Milan-Juventus rivalry. The article must be pruned of a bit of OR and POV, and about inclusion criteria, well, I'd say we can stick to the ones that can be referenced. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clarify inculsion criteria. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I echo the calls for an inclusion criteria. I tried cleaning up this article 2 or 3 years ago, sources for everything in it, but since then it has expanded with every perceived rivalry you could imagine. It's so frustrating when there's over 100 references in the article already, but when people add their content they don't want to tell you where they get the information from. Stop the bloat, trim the fat, sharpen the focus! --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 21 May 2010 (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.