Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama–Ole Miss 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. Consensus exists that this rivalry is notable. The keep rationales are way more convincing then the delete !votes and show sourcing that indicates the topic meets WP:GNG. Also, thanks to Hammersoft and Cbl62 for their good sleuth work. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 00:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Alabama–Ole Miss football rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a rivalry, and that's probably because it isn't a rivalry. I think we tend to overdo the rivalry thing here on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral The teams play in the same division of the same conference so naturally they'll play each other often, but that does not a rivalry make. Lizard  (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Lizard the Wizard. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 18:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Granted, the article as it stands now is decidedly lacking in references supporting the existence of an actual rivalry. However, there is plenty of evidence pointing to this being a real and important rivalry from around the web. Bleacher report calls it a rivalry, as does Fansided , Gamedayr , the Cox Media Group , GridironNow , Touchdown Alabama (google cached) , Yellowhammer Multimedia and others. There's quite a few references to this rivalry actually. Ok this isn't Auburn-Alabama, but it is an actual rivalry and regarded as such by both teams apparently. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Cox Media source rates Ole Miss-Alabama as the #1 rivarly in the SEC. That's persuasive.  Is there any argument that this source ("SEC Country") is not a reliable source? Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate to be that jerk that says "that source is wrong", but that source is wrong. Number 1? Well...Florida-Tennessee, Mississippi-Mississippi State, Alabama-Auburn..., am I way off here? Drmies (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * According to their Facebook "about us" page, the "SEC Country" people are not affiliated with the SEC. As for Cox Media Group, well...we have an article about them here. While they aren't ESPN in terms of recognition, they do seem independent of the rivalry, and are a secondary source. As for the source being wrong, that's opinion :) citation needed ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Cox article is that it (explicitly) only deals with the least three years, which makes the case for "rivalry" much harder to make. I mean, three years is nothing compared to the history of the SEC. The Bleacher Report article does use the term explicitly and over a longer period of time, but it's the only one in there that I have some faith in. Gamedayr is just a fan page, and what Yellowhammernews (a blog, and not a bad one, but still just a blog) reports is what TicketCity, a ticket broker, had to say. So, not a reliable source, reporting on something published by not a reliable source. Southbound is part of Fansided, and that is simply not a reliable source--"a thriving collection of over 300 communities dedicated to bringing together fans to share their common passions". Sorry Hammersoft, but if you want to mess with the SEC you'll have to bring your A game. RTR, Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because it's the SEC doesn't mean there's a different set of notability guidelines that apply. I'm sorry. WP:GNG applies, whether it's the SEC or Division III ball. If there's a rivalry as reported in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources, then there's a rivalry. I've provided several secondary sources. You want more? Here's more.
 * Topbet.eu calls Alabama's rivalry with Ole Miss #5 biggest rival and says "the Ole Miss rivalry dates all the way back to 1894"
 * Washington post says "In the long history of this rivalry..."
 * International Business Times, while calling it a "one-sided rivalry" does call it a rivalry
 * The Alex City Outlook, while a small market newspaper, also counts as a reliable, secondary source. Here's a 2007 article from them titled "Bama, Ole Miss renew SEC rivalry" . It's worth noting the year of publication, and that should anyone have an idea this is a rivalry only because of the last couple of games, that's wrong.
 * Al.com, while likely Alabama biased, is an independent news source. They note in this article; "...in the history of the rivalry."
 * All of the above count as independent, reliable, secondary sources. All of the above refer to this as a rivalry. I say again, this rivalry isn't on the same level as Auburn-Alabama, but it is a rivalry with over 120 years of history. You said "There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a rivalry". I know with the information you had at the time, that seemed the case. However, I've proven this to be clearly false. This is a clear WP:GNG pass. I encourage you to amend your vote given the above, new information. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to have a look--as long as you're not claiming that Gamedayr and TicketCity and the others I discussed are reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine if you want to ignore Gamedayr. I count it as reliable as it has an editorial team reviews all posts prior to publishing, including assuring "for originality, sourcing, statistics and grammar" and that "sources must come in the form of a reputable publisher...." I.e., editorial oversight. As for Yellowhammer, I don't see that it is a blog. They are a news outlet, with staff. In fact, you can apply to be an intern right now. I.e., editorial oversight. Are they biased? I don't know. Independent? Yes. That's the salient point. Whether or not they are neutral or not is immaterial, per WP:BIASED. I don't really care if you ignore all of the sources provided by myself and Cbl62. You (rightfully, at the time) made a claim there was no evidence of there being a rivalry. That's subsequently been proven false, as multiple newspapers have been cited on this AfD dating back decades referring to this as a rivalry. I would hope you would see the weight of evidence and do the right thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here is a full-page article (part of it linked) on the classic games in the Ole Miss-Alabama series. Also, here is a 1971 article dealing with Alabama-Ole Miss rivalry. I also found this article from 1966 dealing with it as a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice finds Cbl62! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

,, ; given that we've come up with so many articles from independent, reliable (as in, there's an editorial staff), secondary sources, and that some of those sources date back more than 50 years, would you please reconsider your opposition to keeping this article? This is a clear pass of WP:GNG now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the decision will be made based on the strength of arguments and not by a headcount of votes, I don't really see a reason to. My argument wasn't very strong and I admit ignorance. I think the issue here is that the media—not Wikipedia—has a more liberal view of what constitutes a "rivalry" than it did in the past. Guess we'll just have to suck it up. Lizard  (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One, more than 50 years ago it was referred to as a rivalry. This rivalry isn't a new-media phenomena. See the links provided by Cbl62. Two, while well-meaning, we have quite a number of non-admin AfD patrollers who do go by strict vote counts, and do one of two things; (1) re-list the debate, even though there's clear evidence one way or the other, if there's not some magical number of majority achieved, or (2) close as "no consensus", which rarely does anyone any favors. You are quite correct it is not a head count, but that's not how AfD typically works anymore. At least striking "delete" in your initial post would help to avoid this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Ample news media sources describing it as a rivalry dating back 50 years. Some people may not like the broad definition of "rivalry" but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Rivalry articles are a bit tricky and I'm not much of a fan of them myself. This one has a deep enough history that it seems to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2016 (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.