Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama–Clemson 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. It's possible that this was not notable when originally created per the history raised by UW Dawgs, but subsequent comments revealed substantial coverage that has appeared more recently. RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Alabama–Clemson football rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm skeptical of the notability of this topic. These schools just happen to play each other more recently due to the recent strength of these college football programs. Quick research of the topic redirects to this Wikipedia article and information on past CFB National Championships. I don't believe playing a team in championships ever so often means the two programs are suddenly rivals. Cobyan02069 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Article was created by a notorious SPA who is now blocked re SOCK. One hallmark of their edits is creation of insufficiently sourced rivalry articles such as this one (most/all of the associated cleanup AfDs have passed when nominated). WP: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. Searches might return articles tied to this week's news cycle which contain the "R" word, but fail GNG in my view on lack of depth. Likely WP:TOOSOON, barring discovery of significant coverage. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Playing a team a number of times does not make a rivalry, no source that this is anything established. Reywas92Talk 20:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep. Changed my vote. ESPN put out this article today: "Clemson-Alabama is the embodiment of the modern rivalry". That's pretty unambiguously non-routine coverage that refers to the series as a rivalry. I personally don't like that this series keeps being referred to as a rivalry, as I think there is a pretty clear divide between something like this and something like the Iron Bowl. But the fact that there is significant coverage of this series as a rivalry is hard to dispute. Ostealthy (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * keep the article could have been created by a banana slug for all I care... I see significant coverage in the Washington Post "Alabama handles Oklahoma, will renew CFP rivalry with Clemson in final" and Charleston Post-Courier "Sapakoff: Alabama vs Clemson is the best top-level football rivalry, college or NFL — ever" this to me looks like a clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think there is WP:SIGCOV from reliable, third party sources (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) of the topic of the rivalry, but the coverage only seems to be routine during the time of the College Football Playoff National Championship. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE and go way, way, way beyond the scope of the definition of "routine coverage" as outlined in WP:ROUTINE. These aren't just listing of scores but are feature articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample sourcing describing it as a notable rivalry. I don't care who created it, it's clearly notable and claiming it should be deleted because of the creator is nothing more than ad hominem attacks and should be completely ignored. Smartyllama (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The only real rivalry is that both schools are good. They don't play each other outside of College Football Playoff games. If Penn State and UCLA suddenly become good and play in a few national championships, will that become a rivalry? Beasting123 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Will they be called a rivalry in multiple independent significant reliable sources?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really a true rivalry as it's understood in the college football landscape. Different conferences, different states. There are only a small handful of rivalries like that (USC/Notre Dame) but they play every year and have a long history. There's been 1 actually scheduled meeting in the regular season in the past 40 years for Alabama/Clemson. Zaqwert (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Question for those of you voting "Keep" here; are there any in-depth sources covering this as a rivalry that are dated prior to December 2015 (i.e. not part of the media hype machine buildup to their CFP matches)? For a similar situation in a different sport, check out Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry, another article about two teams who are not "rivals" in any kind of historical or geographical sense until they suddenly and recently began meeting in the championship match seemingly every single year. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason that is necessary for notability? To me, it's a notable rivalry because the rivalry has been addressed directly by name in significant reliable sources.  As stated in WP:GNG:  "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."  I see nothing there to even suggest requiring coverage before December 2015.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary, but coverage dated prior to December 2015 would go a long way to assuage any WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS concerns there may be with the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS is very specific. Since this clearly is not:  1) Original reporting; 2) News reports; 3) Who's who; or 4) A diary then I don't see how that policy could apply.  And WP:RECENTISM seems to be stretch too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only is it a notable rivalry, it is the most notable rivalry in college football today. In three of the last four years, they have played for the national championship ranked #1 and #2. In the fourth year, they met in the playoff ranked #1 and #4.  This is completely unprecedented -- legendary stuff.  And as Paul pointed out above, there is abundant coverage discussing the series as a rivalry. (I understand the hostility to the article; everyone outside the South is sick of these teams' dominance, but one cannot deny the notability of this series.) Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Paul mentioned, see also (1) "Alabama vs Clemson is the best top-level football rivalry, college or NFL — ever", (2) "Alabama-Clemson becomes college football's best rivalry". Cbl62 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, regardless of who created this article, the fact still stands that these two teams have come to face each other at the end, or close to the end of every season. The rivarly has recieved beyond significant reliable coverage:


 * 1) | NY Times
 * 2) | Washington Post
 * 3) | The Guardian
 * I think this rivarlry pretty clearly meets WP:GNG. So I vote to keep. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep reliable third party sources, non-routine coverage, and regularly billed as a major rivalry as of late. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.