Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brown–Princeton_football_rivalry References

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. Vanamonde ( talk) 22:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Brown–Princeton 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 supporting 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 1898 and is not particularly competitive.
site:newspapers.com is good for sourcing significant historical coverage
site:nytimes.com is another
Modify as helpful, but neither returned much for me. UW Dawgs ( talk) 21:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep "not particularly competitive" is not a reason to delete--the competitiveness of any contest can add to the interest but a lack of it does not necessarily disqualify. There's a long history here and the lack of sources cited is a surmountable problem--one that can be remedied with both online and offline sources. I don't particularly like "rivalry" articles but that's not a reason to delete either.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:44, 21 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) 14:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  - As posted in the other discussion, wayback machine fines this: Brown Opponents].
    - 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) 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. Today, we think of Princeton and Brown as second- or third-tier programs, but they were actually significant programs in the first four decades of the 20th century. As a result, Brown-Princeton games received national coverage. Here is an example from 1930 of a Minnesota newspaper giving feature "game-of-the-day" coverage to the Princeton-Brown game. Here is another example from the New York Daily News in 1931. And here are three stories (all from the same NJ newspaper) detailing the history and referring to it as a "rivalry": this from 1946; this from 1950; and this from 1953. The length of play, 84 games dating back to 1898, also weighs in favor of this being a notable series. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
- Nice finds, as always. I extended 3 citations with quote parameters in support of the narrow rivalry claim at issue. Defer to others if/when GNG-sufficient. UW Dawgs ( talk) 18:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete there's a difference between a rivalry and two teams who have played each other a lot. The NJ paper which uses "rivalry" uses it to flair up the article, and mentions it only very late and in passing - there's absolutely nothing showing these two schools consider each other rivals in the traditional sense for a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer talk 01:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - Yale & Princeton is a rivalry. Brown & Princeton is a long-running series of competitions. No opinion as to whether this passes GNG. Close call. Carrite ( talk) 03:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

If it's not a rivalry and just a table for a long-running series of competitions, it arguably also fails WP:NOTSTATS. SportingFlyer talk 06:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Yes, the two schools have played each other many times, but there is no evidence that this relationship between the football teams of the two schools is the kind of college rivalry in which "schools place an added emphasis on emerging victorious in any event that includes their rival", which would be best evidenced by reliable and verifiable sources discussing games between the two teams in the context of a rivalry. With no sources in the article that meet that standard and no reliable and verifiable sources found in in a Google search to support the claim, the article does not appear notable, even with some of the sources cited above. Alansohn ( talk) 21:28, 27 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.