Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisville–West Virginia 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville–West Virginia rivalry

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

Non-notable college football series. The supposed rivalry has attracted only routine coverage of the games, no coverage indicating a "rivalry." Not named or branded, has no trophy, hasn't even been played very much, for the moment is no longer played. Not every football series is a "rivalry". GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a series, not a rivalry. A non-notable series that is not even active. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - agree the article needs work (mostly in the form of sources that reference this rivalry specifically) but I think it could be saved. Worth having a look at:

A Look Back At The Louisville/West Virginia Big East Rivalry by Mike Rutherford (Card Chronicle, 2012)
Louisville vs West Virginia: The Latest and Greatest Battle. by Kevin Spradlin (2011) - not a great reference (as a blog) but does highlight that the rivalry is considered to be between the two colleges in multiple sports (not just football).
Big East's best rivalry of the past decade by Brian Bennett (ESPN.com, 2010) - mentions the rivalry in a historical context.

Don't get me wrong, we're not talking about a single-sport rivalry which has a name and a significant history like The F3 Derby (in Australia; ironically, that article needs serious work too) but I do think with a bit of effort the article could be fixed up. It might be worth noting, in the article, that the rivalry is a historical one (no longer in play after the realignment of the division) but notability is not temporary so that should not change the validity of the article itself if that can be substantiated. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these satisfy the "significant coverage in reliable sources" requirements of WP:GNG. References 2 and 3 are blogs (not "reliable sources") and the 1st reference is about the Pitt v. WVU rivalry, saying only that "Louisville-West Virginia burned bright but then faded." (not significant coverage). Really, that ESPN article is actually evidence that this is not a notable rivalry.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely and you'll note I didn't suggest those links made for good references. It was more about noting that the rivalry had been talked about and that I could understand where the article originated. It is considered, by some, to have been a standalone rivalry (historical, not current) but that doesn't mean it meets WP:GNG. If it doesn't, it should go. My suggestion was that given I could find a couple of mentions with a very quick google search, it might be worth trying to find some more with a proper search. I also thought it would be worth pointing out that it is considered a historical rivalry, not a current one. So people searching for contemporary references to a current rivalry would find nothing. Again, if it doesn't meet WP:GNG then it should go. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, and I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Do you?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, that is certainly the question. I was on the fence, did a quick google search, found some mentions and so (being on the side of caution) I fell to weak keep. I'm happy to accept that what I found might be the only mentions, ever. I am also happy to accept that these alone don't constitute coverage that meets WP:GNG. I suppose I'm mostly an advocate for the "fix over frag" philosophy (and believe problems are often surmountable) but am happy to accept some articles cannot be fixed. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't have created it, and I'm not a big fan of these "rivalry" articles. But it appears to have been a notable rivalry in the past, and notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing anything here to establish a true "rivalry". They've played each other, and have coexisted in the Big East for a time, seem to have fought each other to get into the Big 12, and that's it. There's no indication that this meets the level of actual recognized rivalries. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any time two teams play in the same conference, some claims of a rivalry will exist. So we have to treat a rivalry article like a regular season game article, is the rivalry historically notable or not. I don't see the GNG to suggest that it is the case here, thus Delete Secret ^account 06:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu, Secret, GrapedApe and Crazy Paco. This article had already been identified by WP:CFB for internal review on the WikiProject talk page. WP:CFB's position is not to create articles for mere game series, no matter how notable, but to incorporate such material into the specific season articles of the two teams. "Rivalry" articles should only be created for series that are notable for being "rivalries." Following that understanding, project editors recently found consensus to delete the former Alabama–Florida football rivalry article because notwithstanding its notability as a series, it was not notable as a significant rivalry. I believe the same to be true in this case, and the closing administrator should give any concerned editor the opportunity to transfer relevant material to the main West Virginia Mountaineers and Louisville Cardinals football articles and their related season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was a series, not a rivalry. AutomaticStrikeout 19:00, 27 September 2012 (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.