Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown–Penn 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. Sandstein 18:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brown–Penn football 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)

One in a series of entirely-unsourced Ivy League football "rivalry" articles dating to March 2016. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero citations, so fails GNG. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage").

Non-GNG callouts:

Series dates to 1895 and is not particularly competitive.
site:newspapers.com is good for sourcing significant historical coverage
site:nytimes.com is another
Add booleans as helpful, but neither returned much for me. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

keep seems to have a rich history and I'm confident that the sourcing is a surmountable problem.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulmcdonald: Could you please post your new GNG-sufficient citations? I'm happy to add them to the article on your behalf and switch to Keep, if sufficient. Right now the article's nominal topic is entirely unsourced. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one found through the Wayback Machine. Most of the games occurred before the internet existed, so offline sources would require research. I have no problem assuming good faith that they can be found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not a rivalry citation -presumably everyone is already in agreement that the series and game results have occurred (also true for almost any two teams from similar locations and/or leagues). The nytimes.com and newspapers.com courtesy links (above) also don't seem to return GNG coverage of a rivalry. So I presume we are in agreement that no GNG-sufficient citations have been identified to date. No intent here to badger you, only trying to reiterate that we have no supporting citations for the article's nominal topic. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and a quick before search for the rivalry brought up just this Wikipedia article and a brief blurb from 1935 in which "rivalry" was used simply to colour the article. Not actually a rivalry. SportingFlyer talk 18:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Did a web search on topic, and not much came up. 🔥flame🔥^talk 15:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's something from the 2016 game from ESPN; Sorry, I couldn't find anything at ESPN on the 1895 game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: that link is broken. SportingFlyer talk 21:32, 22 September 2018 (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.