Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ole Miss–Tennessee football 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 delete'. Unfortunately for the one keep voter, their argument is a variation on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Miss–Tennessee football rivalry[edit]

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

The Ole Miss-Tennessee college football game series is not notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage -- as a traditional college football rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Instances of mainstream coverage in reliable sources of this purported "rivalry" are trivial, and any significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is only found on fan sites, blogs and other non-reliable or non-independent sources that are not suitable for establishing notability per GNG. The independence and reliability of sources mentioning this series as a "rivalry" will be a key aspect in this discussion: if sources are not independent (no athletic department releases, yearbooks, school newspapers, etc.) and reliable (no blogs, fansites, etc.), they cannot be used to sustain the subject's notability. Any mentions of this series as a rivalry in mainstream news sources should be substantial, i.e., not trivial mentions of a "rivalry," but substantial discussions of the series' history, traditions, and significance as a "rivalry". This article was previously submitted for proposed deletion per WP:PROD on October 2nd, but the article creator removed the PROD tag without explanation on October 5th. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some relevant key word searches:

"Ole Miss-Tennessee football rivalry" (Google search): [1] 11 hits for quoted phrase, all Wikipedia article or process pages, or mirror articles/pages;
"Ole Miss Tennessee football rivalry" (Google search): [2] 10 hits for quoted phase, all Wikipedia article or process pages, or mirror articles/pages;
"Ole Miss-Tennessee rivalry" (Google search): 0 hits for quoted phrase;
"Ole Miss Tennessee rivalry" (Google search): 0 hits for quoted phrase.

These are are good places for AfD discussion participants' to begin their WP:BEFORE due diligence. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantive, much less significant, coverage in independent reliable sources, hence failling WP:GNG. No special claim of notability is made. All of the sources are blogs, non-reliable or non-independent sources. Doubtless sources could be added to verify the scores and dates of the games, but those would not add toward notability of the rivalry. Old newspapers via Google and via Newspaper Archives Online don't seem to regard this as a "rivalry". Unlike the Mississippi–Mississippi State football rivalry or the Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry, which, by the way, is sorely lacking in citation to independent, reliable sources, for which newspaper articles detailing the rivalry can be found. --Bejnar (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: The Auburn-Tennessee rivalry article is on my list of rivalry articles to review for notability. As a threshold matter, however, Auburn-Tennessee was recognized by southeastern sports commentators of as one of the better SEC annual home-and-away series that got dumped when the SEC expanded and went to divisional play in 1992. (The other was Auburn-Florida, which ceased to be annual in 2002). I have seen numerous mentions of the Auburn-Tennessee series as a traditional "rivalry," certainly more so than this one, but it remains to be seen if it would survive GNG scrutiny. Some of these old CFB series, including this one, require a considerable amount of WP:BEFORE background research in Newspapers.com, Google News Archive, Google Books, etc., before nominating one for AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In doing my due diligence for this Afd, the rivalries that came up most often were the Mississippi–Mississippi State football rivalry and the Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry. I agree that sometimes background research is tedious, the more so as it tends towards comprehensiveness. I would suggest to CollegeRivalry that he or she obtain a subscription to Newspaper Archives Online, often free at larger public libraries, or physically visit the morgues (newspaper archives at the newspaper) of relevant newspapers, and find citations to independent sources prior to writing new articles. Magazines such as Time and Newsweek used to have an occasional story on college football rivalries in their sports section. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wouldn't dream of starting a new CFB rivalry article without sourcing it in depth. Of course, all of the established rivalries I would want to work on already have articles. If you want to see examples of properly sourced CFB rivalry articles, take a look at Auburn–Florida football rivalry and Florida–Georgia football rivalry and their footnotes; for unquestionably notable rivalries, there are usually multiple feature articles in newspapers and sports magazines, as well as stand-alone books about the specific rivalry. These rivalry AfDs drive me nuts because people will find a 1935 newspaper article that mentions an "annual rivalry" and then argue that as the basis for something meaningful. Part of the problem is many AfD participants don't agree on what constitutes "significant coverage." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winsipedia is not a reliable source, and the only other source is an ESPN article that does not contain the word "rivalry" at all. This looks like original research to me, but if it's not it still doesn't pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition to Dirtlawyer's research, I conducted a number of searches on newspapers.com and found nothing treating the Tennessee - Ole Miss series as a rivalry, and certainly nothing with any depth. Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weren't these two teams part of the 1969 "Mule Game"? I that could be the rivalry that has since faded. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MurderByDeadcopy is referring to the November 15, 1969 game in which Mississippi trounced Tennessee 38 to 0. There was a lot of excitment before that game because Tennessee was ranked #3 in the nation. --Bejnar (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The background is that coach Johnny Vaught trolled his own players (to motivate them) by having a plane drop leaflets over the Ole Miss practice field that said "Archie Who?" and quoted the UT player who compared Ole Miss to a "bunch of mules" when asked by a reporter if Ole Miss had "a bunch of horses?" Classic bulletin board game, fun SEC history game, mention belongs in the 1969 season articles. Still not a classic traditional rivalry though. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say many "classic" rivalries come and go. Is wiki getting rid of history because it cannot be found online? Good info on a subject such as this may be more difficult to discover. Florida at one time always played Miami as their first game of the year which gave that game a sense of rivalry. Then it was changed in 1987 and gone was that intense conflict between those two (oddly enough that rivalry is on wiki[3]). I genuinely laugh (and also am a bit sad) when articles end up in AFD without being given some time to grow. Sure, if an article's a commercial or completely laughable (even those sometimes don't get deleted[4]), but this article is neither. I, also, strongly believe that before anyone ever creates an article, they should spend time in AFD. It's given me a very cynical viewpoint on the subject. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree rivalries come and go, and assume we are fine with rivalries of a more historical than contemporary significance. e. g. 1, 2, 3. The problem is whether said historical rivalry meets the notability criteria, and whether every regular, conference opponent constitutes a "rivalry." I have mixed feelings about this rivalry too, and thus have left myself out of the voting part. Cake (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After finding the Miami vs Florida rivalry on wiki[5] (which really surprised me), I strongly believe that this article is just as notable! Yep, I'm going against the grain on this one (even though I realize which way this will go seeing as whom I'm up against), but I'm sticking my neck out on this one anyway. Wikipedia is so fickle when it comes to applying its own rules! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:18, 13 October 2015 (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.