Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Texas–UTSA 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 no consensus. There's disagreement on whether the sources mentioned are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NRIVALRY. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas–UTSA football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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." The four current citations neither demonstrate a rivalry, nor meet the GNG bar of "significant coverage." Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources, including 2017 description as a "budding ... rivalry"[1]. There have been five games played to date, 2013-2017. Fails GNG, might be WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the following sources were found on the first page of Google:
  "North Texas’ short, bitter rivalry with UTSA continues this weekend" (North Texas Daily)
  "Naming the North Texas and UTSA Rivalry" (Forgotten 5)
  "UTSA vs. UNT is the Texas Rivalry the Conference Needs" (GoMeanGreen.com)
  "There’s definitely a history there and our players understand that...with these rivalry games it doesn’t matter" (San Antonio Express-News)
  
  Seems like several sources from both schools are referring to the game as a rivalry. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• #1. Mostly legit, but focussed on player/coach quotes as supporting. #2. "We have already established that this matchup has all of the necessary ingredients to be a rivalry." and not a RS in my view. #3. A message board post, not RS. 4. Paywall, view source says "a budding rivalry". Looking for significant coverage from RS which state there is a rivalry. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if anything, this seems to be a regional rivalry at this time. I have no prejudice toward re-creation in the future if it comes to the level of notability required for inclusion in this encyclopedia. try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Same as PCN02WPS. The rivalry has even more sources than the ones listed above that talk about the topic. The Shula Bowl you could say is a regional rivalry. You don't see reports in Washington or another state talking about that rivalry on a national level. Unlike the UTEP rivalry with UTSA, UTSA and NT schools both state the rivalry and have multiple sources year in and year out. --Jpp858 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Only #1 (North Texas Daily) is a WP:RS, while the other three are not. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage." Can you please share any new RS citations which you may have discovered and are required by GNG? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's nothing wrong with regional rivalries when they receive coverage in reliable sources. It's also worth noting that Texas has the same population as a medium-sized country, so it seems somewhat disingenuous to say it should be deleted because most of the coverage is from there. Smartyllama (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you please identify your new RS citation which demonstrate "significant coverage"? Because they are not currently in the article and haven't been located to date, which is precisely why there is an AfD. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article itself has few points to convey a rivalry. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits)} 05:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 14 August 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.