Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota–Nebraska 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 keep. Mr.Z-man 01:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are not inherently notable and must meet WP:GNG. This rivalry simply lacks the coverage to satisfy these criteria. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I was initially influenced by the fact that the Minnesota-Nebraska series has a "rivalry trophy." However, there has been a proliferation of such trophies within the Big Ten Conference. According to one article linked here: "With Nebraska and Wisconsin adding the Freedom Trophy, there are now five trophies at stake in the six games among Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. So that means five of the six Heartland rivalry games will have a trophy. Currently, Minnesota-Nebraska is the only game in that foursome not to have a trophy, and while those two schools seem to have virtually nothing in common, Minnesota running back David Cobb said in the summer he plans on turning Minnesota-Nebraska into a competitive annual series." With the addition of a trophy for Minn-Nebr., every game in that group now has a trophy. See also this piece explaining that the "Broken Chair" trophy was created as essentially an Internet joke. So, the existence of a trophy does not make this a notable rivalry. The two teams did play regularly in historic times, and if someone can come up with evidence that the game was historically considered a true rivalry, I would reconsider my "delete" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some support for the argument that there has been a historic rivalry can be found (1) here. IMO, more sourcing is needed to establish this series as a true historic rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also (2) this article from 1943 referring to the "long football rivalry" between Minnesota and Nebraska. Also (3) this 1956 AP story about the Minn-Nebr "rivalry". Further, and FWIW, (4) a history of Nebraska football published in 2013 (found here) notes: "Rivals of Nebraska's early teams included Notre Dame, Iowa, Minnesota, and Pittsburgh." Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, Cbl, I have not done my BEFORE due diligence on this subject yet, but the two newspaper articles linked above seem to be using the word "rivalry" in its most generic sense, and neither discusses the history and significance of the series as a traditional college rivalry. The book at least recognizes that the series may have had greater significance in it earlier years. I think we're all looking for coverage that's a little meatier -- including you. "Real" rivalries should have generated some feature articles in regional, if not national newspapers and sports publications. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Nice to have you back, Big Guy.[reply]

I haven't done a lot of due diligence either, and still haven't changed my vote from "delete", but I am closer to being on the fence now. The two newspaper articles linked above (1943 and 1956) are not local coverage. The 1956 article is a nationally circulated AP story picked up by a Washington paper, and the 1943 one also appears to be a national wire service piece picked up by a Delaware paper. Cbl62 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more historic sources dealing with the series as a rivalry: (5) this 1964 piece referring to it as a rivalry dating back 64 years; and (6) this further publication of the 1956 AP story titled "Nebraska, Minnesota Renew Grid Rivalry." See also (7) this bleacherreport piece debating whether or not the series should be considered a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it needs is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. That's what I'm not finding. It's not enough to find mentions of a rivalry, but there needs to be significant coverage of the rivalry itself. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Cbl's findings, I think we should allow interested parties to summarize the extant sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, did you read Cbl's linked sources? Three do not constitute significant coverage, and the only modern newspaper story calls into question whether Minnesota-Nebraska is a traditional rivalry. Those are some slender reeds to hang your notability argument upon. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All those references establish is that there is a rivalry. They don't establish that it is notable. WP:GNG needs to be met to keep this. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this vein, why isn't Nebraska-Oklahoma deleted? auburnjohn (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your question, auburnjohn. The Nebraska–Oklahoma football rivalry was one of the great rivalries in the history of the sport. The fact that the series has been put on hold does not render it less notable. Notability is not temporary. Cbl62 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not convinced that deletion will help Wikipedia in this case. Granted, that's weak. But there's been a lot of deletions in the college football realm lately and I think we're getting a little over-zealous.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you're entitled to your opinion, but it would be helpful if you could provide some basis in policy or the guidelines for keeping this article. To wit, is there significant coverage of this game series as a rivalry in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines? This article subject is clearly a gray zone case, so providing a reliably sourced feature article or two that (a) confirm that this series is, in fact, a real rivalry, and (b) discuss the rivalry's history and significance would probably cement a consensus for keeping it. Cbl and I are going through the exercise of reviewing 80+ years of coverage in Google News Archive and Newspapers.com, and the results so far are pretty thin in reliable sources. Your assistance is requested. And, yes, there will be 25 or more CFB rivalry articles (and another 10-15 regular season game articles) nominated for AfD after New Year's -- it's long overdue that we purge stand-alone articles for CFB game series that are not traditional rivalries and/or notable per NRIVALRY and GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It is a policy, and it states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe that the continued rapid removal of games, rivalries, and other college football articles based on the opinions of a handful of active users at the present time is preventing us from improving Wikipedia. This purge really gains us nothing and we lose a lot.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how including non-notable content will improve Wikipedia. It does the opposite. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe the topic clearly passes WP:GNG and is notable, and therefore can be included. But there are a few editors who argue that point, so rather than go there I choose to ignore. Here's how it will go: I'll say it clearly passes WP:GNG; another editor will say it fails WP:ROUTINE; I will say they need to read that guideline because the content is more than just sports scores as the guideline dictates; that editor will ignore that comment and say the coverage is routine; another editor will say it is routine; I point out the essay at WP:NOTROUTINE outlining the reasons that the routine argument fails; I will be told that I don't understand WP:ROUTINE because it applies to more than just sports scores for sports; I will ask at WP:ROUTINE for clarification and will get none; I will point out that routine specifically says "sports scores" for sports; the article will be deleted anyway. Therefore, I choose to Ignore the Rules. Why not? Everyone else seems to.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the roughly 20 AfDs in the past 10 days on college football rivalries and individual games, I voted "delete" on all of them. That said, this is the one where my conclusion is weakest. There is significant coverage of this rivalry in national media outlets, at least of the historic rivalry as it existed from the 1930s to 1960s, and I'm probably more on the fence than when I initially voted to delete. I believe Paul's "keep" vote is understandable given the coverage. This one lands somewhere in the gray area where reasonable minds can differ. Cbl62 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the coverage as being significant. A passing mention of a rivalry isn't enough. I would expect a more in-depth feature of a rivalry if it is significant. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON there's no need to keep repeating arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I am changing my vote from "Delete" to "Neutral." As noted above, I've voted "Delete" on all the other rivalry articles, but this one is a borderline case. While it does not rise to the level of the truly classic rivalries, it does have some of the characteristics of a true rivalry, including: (i) coverage as a rivalry in national news outlets (sampling cited above); (ii) longevity (series dates back a century or more); (iii) regularity (with the two schools now in the same division of the Big Ten, the series is played every year); (iv) traveling trophy (albeit new and somewhat lame); (v) major programs with storied histories (both schools have won multiple national championships); and (vi) geographic proximity (not bordering states, but pretty close). Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research done by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2014 (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.