Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A62 derby

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 I think I am reading keep for Bradford derby and no consensus for the others. Whereas arguments have been made that these are too minor to be notable, also some sources have been found, and at this point is was not really possible to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A62 derby[edit]

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

No reliable sources provided to show this to be a notable rivalry, and a quick google search doesn't bring much up either. Probably fails WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also appear to fail WP:GNG

There were a few other local derby articles that look a bit iffy, but these ones seemed fairly clear to me. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bradford derby, per WP:NTEMP. Clearly was a derby match between two Football League clubs for about half of the 20th century, until Bradford PA went bust. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree - there are plenty of articles on the internet relating to the rivalry between Huddersfield and Oldham. You only need to read articles before the two meet on either club page - it's a proper local derby... only Bradford or Leeds are bigger rivals in my opinion, and that's coming from a Terriers fan.

A rivalry is a rivalry regardless of whether people supporting other clubs agree or not. But if we're going to remove games based on a difference of opinion, then by just browsing through a few on the list of derbies it is quite clear that there are others far more worthy of removal. For instance:

Milton Keynes v Wycombe - no history to it| Cambridge City v Cambridge Utd - not been played for decades| Cambridge Utd v Histon - no real history to it bar a couple of seasons in the Conference| Milton Keynes v Northampton - no history to it| Kettering v Rushden - non-league at Rushden have barely played Kettering| Milton Keynes v Peterborough - again, no real history to it| Dagenham v AFC Wimbledon - not aware of any genuine rivalry| Crewe v Port Vale - similar to Huddersfield v Oldham - not the main rival but certainly a genuine one| Port Vale v Walsall - again, aware of it - but no more notable than Huddersfield v Oldham| Nuneaton v Tamworth - local derby for sure, but more notable?| Shrewsbury v Telford - barely ever played, despite being obviously local| Bolton v Wigan - most Bolton fans don't see Wigan as one of their biggest rivals| Altrincham v Macclesfield - local for sure, but again?| Fleetwood v Blackpool - very local game and definitely a derby, but one with virtually no history to it| Bournemouth v Southampton - a local derby yes, and Bournemouth fans dislike Southampton, but it's rather one sided| All of these are no less worthy of removal - if we're going to be fair about it then we'll have a rather empty page remaining.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.116.131 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.129.116.131: if deleted, these derbies will still be listed at Local derbies in the United Kingdom. The question is whether to have a separate article on them- see Ilikeeatingwaffles's comment below --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this gargantuan sentence had a decent in-line citation I might be inclined to vote keep: {{boxquote|Although neither club considered the other as a major rival until more recent times, with Huddersfield having more traditional rivalries with fellow Yorkshire clubs such as Leeds United, Bradford City and Barnsley, and Oldham with traditional Lancashire clubs such as Bolton Wanderers, Manchester City and Blackburn Rovers, a lack of competitive fixtures against these clubs led to increased significance and intensity in the fixture, particularly when both clubs spent a number of seasons in the same division whilst vying for promotion from the third tier. Otherwise, delete. 94.8.65.103 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bradford derby - article needs improving, yes, but this was a sizeable rivalry back in the day, and as Jmorrison230582 says WP:NTEMP applies. The rest look to be non-notable so delete the rest. Giant Snowman 07:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - You may see this as biased on my behalf, but seeing as I wrote much of the original article I obviously oppose deletion of it. I also added numerous links citing (what happened to those?) that this is a genuine football rivalry. In my lifetime Huddersfield have always been classed as a rival of Oldham's, in my case the major rivalry alongside Bolton, and I've attended games at Boundary Park since the late 1980s. Attendances at both venues are often much higher than other fixtures, including when Oldham have played other local derbies against teams such as Stockport and Rochdale. To remove it and yet leave fixtures such as Bournemouth v Southampton, Blackpool v Fleetwood and, even more bizarrely, Plymouth v Portsmouth (which isn't even a derby in the true sense of the word, let alone a major rivalry), is more than a little baffling. DShamen (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Not seeing any significant third party coverage to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY. Willing to be correct, particularly on the Bradford Derby, as sources for this are probably predominantly offline, but I'm not seeing much online. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion has become a bit unfocussed. Please not that it is specifically about whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the individual articles mention in the deletion debate are inherently notable, sufficient to pass Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. It is not a discussion about the page Local derbies in the United Kingdom, nor is it a discussion about whether any of the rivalries exist, or that the particular sets of fans find them to be of importance. It is about whether there is sufficient, reliable, independent info to write an article that is more than a list of results. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nene, Rushmoor, Aldershot-Woking. I'm hovering towards weak keep Bradford but share Fenix down's concerns: the article as it stands appears to have only one reliable source, and the rest that I can find is run of the mill news reporting (eg [1]) or only brief mentions (eg [2]). It'd be nice to get an extra source or two in there! In the other direction I'm tending towards weak delete A62: it doesn't look like there are the sources to back it up but I'd be happy to be proved wrong? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve all football goes beyond your Sky Sports package, your made in China ManUtd mug, and half Barca half Real scarf. If only people spent as much time improving these articles as they do attempting to delete as many as possible. If we agree these rivalries are legitimate and exist, then really we should be looking to improve these articles not delete them. To the bloke who wanted online sources about a rivalry dating mostly back to before computers even existed - well done. Otherwise let's just limit Wikipedia to the 4 rivalries everyone knows and delete half this website because we all know if it's not in 1.3 trillion articles in specific 5 or 6 national online newspapers it doesn't exist. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also to person who is attempting the myth that no history MK Dons v Northampton and Wycombe rivalries - not true whatsoever, fierce rivalry for well over 10 years at least now. AFC Kingston v Crawley has no history, because they're all Chelsea fans 6 days of the week. Also at what point do you say it's not notable? Nuneaton v Tamworth is notable if you supported one those teams. If they were promoted to the Championship would that suddenly make it more notable? It's highly subjective. If it's referenced it's a rivalry, simple as that. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.119.85 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on nearly all of that, bar your criticism of my comment on some of the derbies. I didn't say that they don't exist or are 'not important'. All derbies are important to supporters, players and fans of the two clubs involved. As for MK Dons v Wycombe or Northampton - no, I wouldn't personally class them as major derbies as they're fairly new. But they will obvious grow into one in the same way that Bournemouth v Southampton or Fleetwood v Blackpool will do over time. Removing local derbies because most supporters of big clubs aren't interested in them is the wrong thing to do in my opinion. These articles should be expanded on, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.119.85 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I wouldn't personally class them as major derbies - major is very subjective. I certainly would class it as major, as it's strong rivalry for at least 12 years now, and anyone who went to the derby matches last season you would know how hostile the two clubs and fans are to each other, the amount of police outnumbered the fans by about 2 to 1 at both fixtures. Flares were set off and several people were evicted at the Sixfields, and both sets of casuals were out in force. The return leg was about the only game the Dons players could've been proud of last season. Northampton took more away to stadium:mk then they usually do at home. Granted if you live outside the area most people would be oblivious, but the same can be said for Tamworth v Nuneaton or Huddersfield v Bradford. Doesn't make it any less notable, or any less deserving of an article than e.g. ManUtd-Liverpool. How far do we go with major? Prem only? Championship? What if one of the clubs or both get promoted? There's no way of measuring "major", so if someone has made an effort to make an article which referenced and we agree that the rivalry itself is legitimate, why on earth are we wanting to delete it?

I'm glad someone agrees with me regarding how we should go about Wikipedia. There a lot of editors who their main focus is to just reduce the number of articles and delete stuff rather than actually add anything constructive or attempt to improve it themselves. Look on my talk page and you'll see this is what is putting me off Wikipedia, I even had a guy complaining I didn't use the right citation format when referencing. When challenged I always raise a point "well why don't you add something rather than having a go at me for adding stuff" and I'm always met with the same stupid response of WP:BURDEN. What's sadder it's usually the more active "contributors" who just go round AfD debates going "delete" and challenge every source until they bludgeon the poor person who created the article into deleting it. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is subjective. Who is anyone to tell someone whether their team's rivalries are significant or not? I'm very aware of the rivalry between Tamworth and Nuneaton, in fact, and as a Huddersfield fan, even more so of the rivalry with Bradford! Both rivalries are every bit as important as Arsenal v Tottenham or Liverpool v Manchester United in the eyes of supporters. I strongly agree with you that deleting articles rather than trying to expand on them is a rather odd way to go about things on what is supposed to be an online encyclopedia - the removal of Bury v Rochdale (a very well known derby if you leave in the Granada region) being a strong example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.119.85 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.129.119.85I (talk · contribs)@Abcmaxx: there are two key things we need to note though:

1. We do have a general way of deciding if something is important - we look at what has been published on it. The reason Wikipedia works, is that we require topics to have a certain notability, judged on whether reputable organisations, independent of the thing itself, have written about a topic. People know that if something is on Wikipedia, it has a little credibility or noteworthiness. If the site becomes a directory of all things everywhere, then it loses that usefulness. Google "A62 derby. It gets very few results (1508 on my computer), of which the vast majority are coincidental (eg not about the Oldham-Huddersfield rivalry) or mirrors of this website. The term seems to appear in passing on some message-boards and in three newspaper match reports - well below our standard for acceptance. A search for either "oldham huddersfield rivalry" or [oldham ahtletic huddersfield town rivalry" gets no results at all. There's very little evidence that the rivalry between Oldham and Huddersfield is any more notable than the rivalry between thousands of other professional clubs globally.

2. We have a more specific approach for football articles in addition to the above, namely that we presume that clubs, players or matches in professional leagues are inherently more notable than activities in semi-professional or amateur leagues. Of course 'non-league' rivalries are important in the eyes of their supporters, but we're not a website for the supporters of those clubs; we're a website of the world. For these articles I think that this does for the two Aldershot related derbies. It does mean that a well sourced article for clubs that compete or have competed together in professional leagues (eg Bradford, A62, Nene) might be valid - we have, for comparison, perfectly good articles on the Luton Town F.C.–Watford F.C. rivalry, the Severnside derby and the Cross-border derby, which have rarely or never been top-flight derbies. Indeed, the latter is currently like the Bradford case not a derby between two clubs in fully professional leagues, but due to its history as such and the strength of evidence of its existence is a good article.

Your arguments miss the majority of the reasons for deletion here - this is not about whether to have articles on lower league rivalries, or about (inherently) whether these rivalries are important to the clubs. It's about, first, whether the article is about a rivalry that has sufficient evidence of its impact and, second, whether the article is about a rivalry involving or previously involving two clubs in fully professional leagues. None of what you've said really responds to these concerns. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. let's just limit Wikipedia to the 4 rivalries everyone knows and delete half this website because we all know if it's not in 1.3 trillion articles in specific 5 or 6 national online newspapers it doesn't exist. - pretty much my point. Not being talked about as much as other rivalries shouldn't mean that a less known one should be rejected.

2. does mean that a well sourced article for clubs that compete or have competed together in professional leagues (eg Bradford, A62, Nene) might be valid - so my point is rather than delete it why don't we improve it.

but we're not a website for the supporters of those clubs; we're a website of the world - which should mean a website of all supporters surely. Also it's an encyclopaedia, and should be a comprehensive one at that, which means it should cover all topics even if they are somewhat more obscure than others.

3. whether the article is about a rivalry that has sufficient evidence of its impact - and you measure that impact by how many times Daily Mail has mention the words Aldershot-Woking derby? To me that's not really measuring impact of anything, that's just skewing stats to favour higher league rivalries.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we favour higher league rivalries. Of course we do. Just as we have articles on the players who play for Manchester United, Bury and Accrington Stanley, but not those who play for Droylsden, Curzon Ashton or Nelson. We favour these things because they are more notable and more important. And yes, our measurement of that is the number of times that these rivalries are mentioned in independent sources. That is how Wikipedia works: it is not a website for all topics, it is a website for all topics that are of notability - this is a core Wikipedia principle. Asking for evidence of notability is not the same as wanting to limit the website to "the 4 rivalries everyone knows", as you put it - as I showed before, we have plenty of articles on rivalries between Football League or former Football League teams.

So we come to point 2: the argument being made is that we can't improve these articles beyond their current state, because the independent published work does not exist. I believe (as I voted above) that it does exist for the Bradford derby and therefore we should keep this page, and may exist for the Nene/A62 derbies. However, as I have not found any evidence that it does - and no-one has offered it here - at the moment I conclude that while there clearly are rivalries between these teams, these rivalries are not of sufficient notability for an article. That is the only claim being made - your responses do not allay these concerns. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

they are more notable and more important - to you, but not to everyone. If I'm a Tamworth fan Id probably think the derby with Nuneaton is the most important rivalry there is, and a Stafford rangers fan might back me up. I think you forget what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. It's inexhaustible. A more obscure subject does not mean it's unencyclopaedic at all. If all we wanted is Premier League rivalries then people wouldn't turn to Wikipedia, or any encyclopaedia, because you look up things that you don't know, not what you can find anywhere. And you certainly CAN improve any article - all you need is a bit of effort and time, rather than putting all your effort into reducing an already shrinking Wikipedia. Also you seem to get muddled in your reasoning - you concede that these are real rivalries and they could be decent articles - however because your 10 second Google search doesn't really cut the mustard that leads to the conclusion that suddenly it stops being notable? Notability does not change, that's a core Wiki policy too. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that any of the rivalries are notable then please provide evidence to prove this. That is the way to end this discussion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following was edit conflicted with ILEW's post above, but that is the much more succinct way of responding!

Either I'm not expressing myself very clearly, or you're misreading my argument. I'll try and state it again. The judgement as to whether or not these articles should stay is if they are notable. We judge notability of a topic based on its appearance in verifiable sources. This means that people have to have written about these rivalries, beyond simple news reporting. There is some evidence that people have done this for the Bradford Derby. No one has offered any evidence of this for the other derbies.

With regards to saying that these are real rivalries and could be decent articles - yes, they could be, if the sources existed which showed them to be notable. What I'm trying to say with this is that the following claims you're repeatedly making, despite evidence to the contrary, are wrong: (1) that we're only interested in Premier League rivalries; (2) that we're saying these rivalries don't exist; (3) that we're saying these rivalries aren't important to anyone. It is more likely that rivalries between bigger clubs will have been written about more, yes, but the inherent question comes back to this issue of verifiability and notability. I grant you that with regards to football, we have a specific judgement about the inherent notability of articles regarding clubs in the National League and below - but under the general notability guidelines that doesn't preclude an article, if sufficiently supported by references.

I've done more than a 10 second Google search, thank you, and either way the policy that notability doesn't change is a completely different issue. That policy reminds us that something may only gain notability for a short period of time, but if it does so then it's worth recording.

Nowhere in this debate have you offered anything saying why these articles should be kept according to our policy, or perhaps more importantly, according to the aims of an encyclopedia. I point you towards WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." The assertion that these pages should be kept because the information is real and that it is important to someone is not an dissertation for keeping the pages.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely muddled your WP policies. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says that not all topics are notable; football rivalries ARE notable so that does not apply. Also on the one hand you say yes, they could be (...) notable, and these rivalries are indeed real on the other you try and make the assumption that if you cannot find an x amount of sources (given that the threshold for how many and what one deems to be sufficient is completely subjective as well) it suddenly stops being verifiable and notable. That is not how it works. I've done more than a 10 second Google search, thank you - prove it. If the sources existed which showed them to be notable - there's no proof to say that these sources do not exist, merely that no-one has found them and added them to the article yet. The general consensus that these are indeed real rivalries - well then surely that is just a matter of time before someone adds them. If we started deleting every article on the basis that articles cannot be improved why not just delete every stub article on here, we'd be left with about 10% of Wikipedia.Abcmaxx (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Football rivalries ARE notable so that does not apply"; No: football rivalries can be notable, if their notability is supported by reliable, verifiable sources. We do not keep articles on the chance that sources might exist; we keep them on the basis of sources which have been shown to exist. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on Bradford derby, as it seems to be a notable football derby between 2 decent teams. Delete the rest as they all fail WP:GNG. Derbies between third/fourth/fifth tier teams are simply not needed. Joseph2302 19:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What an utterly foolish and contemptible statement to make. So if two clubs are promoted to the 2nd tier then their rivalry becomes important? So Blackpool v Preston was a forgettable fixture whilst in the lower divisions? The Bradford derby 'seems to be a football derby between 2 decent teams'. Can you clarify what on Earth that is supposed to mean? DShamen (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, utter nonsense. So if your team Norwich get relegated, you will suddenly have fondness for Ipswich then I assume? As if they stay up they'll be a "decent team" yeah? Abcmaxx (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly someone who knows very little about the history and tradition that creates football rivalries. He's completely contradicted himself in his statement anyway, and his opinion really ought to be ignored. DShamen (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016‎ (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.