Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Tennessee 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. Another Keep based on additional sources found and WP:NTEMP (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Auburn–Tennessee football rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence that this series between these teams is or was anything more than an average SEC contest. They aren't permanent cross-divisional opponents, no trophy or name for this so-called "rivalry". There have been some good games between Auburn and Tennessee, but that alone doesn't make it a "rivalry". This is just an average Southeastern Conference football game and isn't a "rivalry" in my judgment. CalebHughes (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 31.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. This may not be currently thought of as a top rivalry, but notability is not temporary, and this was one of the most competitive and storied series in the history of Southern football. As (1) this source recounts, the rivalry has lost steam since the SEC split but it was once a bitter rivalry. See also (2) this source calling it the best historic SEC rivlalry lost to the SEC split. Significantly in my estimation, there have been at least 20 marquee match-ups between the teams in which both teams were ranked or a ranked team was upset.  The marquee match-ups between Tennessee and Auburn include: 2004 (played twice: #8 vs #10, #3 vs #15); 2003 (Auburn upset #7 Tenn); 1997 (#11 vs #3); 1991 (#13 vs #5); 1990 (#3 vs #5); 1989 (#4 vs #12); 1987 (#3 vs #11); 1985 (Tenn. upset #1 Auburn); 1980 (Tenn. upset #18 Auburn); 1974 (Auburn upset #14 Tenn.); 1973 (#11 vs #9); 1972 (Auburn upset #4 Tenn.); 1971 (#5 vs #9); 1970 (Auburn upset #17 Tenn.); 1969 (#17 vs #19); 1968 (#5 vs #18); 1959 (Tenn upset #3 Auburn); 1957 (Auburn upset #8 Tenn.); and 1937 (Auburn upset #7 Tenn). There are also intangibles favoring a rivalry finding, including border-state geography, longevity (series dates to 1900); frequency of play (52 total games); competitiveness of the series (Auburn leads 28 to 21); and program prominence (8 claimed national titles between them). Cbl62 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to the two sources linked above, here are other sources dealing with the historic rivalry: (3) "Auburn-Tennessee rivalry now a Southern showcase", 1990; and (4) AU-UT series often heated, 1983 (calling it "one of the best" rivalries in the Southeast). Cbl62 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per CBL's cites, two of which (WP:OVERCITE) are now added to the article; Seems sufficient per WP:GNG's "significant coverage." UW Dawgs (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination is written entirely in the present tense. As noted in a similar AfD, Wikipedia doesn't exist to document things in the present moment, and the title doesn't imply currency. There is ample documentation of a historic rivalry.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the excellent (as usual) rationale presented by Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl62 and WP:NTEMP. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2018 (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.