Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–UAB men's basketball 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ and I don't see an additional relist bringing on anything other than split input Star   Mississippi  16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Auburn–UAB men's basketball rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject does not meet WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant, independent WP:SIGCOV. Let&#39;srun (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball,  and Alabama. Let&#39;srun (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as there is substantial disagreement over the quality of the sources. I'll note that this often happens with sources that appear to be interviews which are not always disallowed as RS, it depends on the surrounding content. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as I added another source to the article from AL.com (major news source in Alabama) talking about the rivalry. It looks like other sources have been added since too. AuburnShuffle (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Here's a look at the sources, in the order in which they appear in the article: Auburn Tigers fansite (not an independent source); seems to call every competition Auburn's teams have a "rivalry": "Auburn has a lot of rivals. The Iron Bowl ....  The Auburn/Alabama rivalry is .... Auburn has great rivalries with Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee. ... Today, we're going to talk about one of Auburn's great but severely undervalued rivalries, UAB Basketball." So, this is basically meaningless opinion-mongering, and explicitly trying to promote as a rivalry something not generally recognized as a rivalry. Second source is an unrecoverable dead link. Next, no mention of rivalry. Fourth: ditto, and laments the lack of games between the two schools. Next even says "Both UAB and Auburn have a rich basketball history" but mentions no rivaly, despite covering a four-game non-league (exhibition) game series between them. No. 7 mentions no rivalry, and is just a listing of games available on WatchESPN streaming. Next, no mention of a rivalry, just coverage of a game's highlights. 9th source: Ditto. Last: Says "Auburn and UAB aren’t annual rivals", and "the budding in-state rivals"; i.e., it is trying to predict that a noteworthy rivalry might develop.It's become clear after half-a-dozen or so of these alleged-rivalry AfDs that what is happening here is that various editors are engaging in the WP:OR that if a series of games is set up between two institutions that this necessarily translates, as if by magic, into "a rivalry" in some encyclopedic sense, but this is clearly not the case. There is no in-depth coverage anywhere of any such rivalry existing, as a WP:Notable subject unto itself, between these two schools, or any of others in the similar AfDs. See, e.g., Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry for what an actually notable sports rivalry looks like, with significant in-depth coverage of the rivalry as "a thing" (with articles like "Manchester United vs Liverpool rivalry in 65 iconic images", "Liverpool v Manchester United: The bitter rivalry", "Man United v Liverpool rivalry in quotes", "Rival Fans Vandalise Old Trafford", etc., in major newspapers), not just passing mention of the word rivalry interspersed with some stats and some individual game coverage. A sports rivalry is a small subculture unto itself which can be written about as its own subject, not just the bare fact of two teams playing some games against each other (even if a sponspor pins a promotional name on the game series).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like you are misunderstanding the point being made in the first source. Auburn is mainly known for football and has a lot of rivalries due to its long football history. In men's basketball, that is not the case, and many who are new to following the team may not have realized that UAB (a team that is not very significant to Auburn in football) has much more history with Auburn in men's basketball. The source itself is obviously a fansite so it doesn't meet the criteria but I think the rundown is good enough to be worth including in the article anyway.
 * Also, all of the games between Auburn and UAB are regular season, non-exhibition games. Are you familiar with how the college basketball season is structured?
 * And, frankly, if your criteria for a valid college basketball rivalry is one that garners equally significant coverage as a Premier League rivalry, then you may as well have almost all of the rest removed. AuburnShuffle (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A website suggesting that some basketball competitions might turn into a "rivalry" to, um, rival that in football isn't encyclopedic material, per WP:NOT. And, yes, most of the rest of the articles on the alleged "rivalries" should be deleted. That's why they're all coming up for AfD. All sport competition involves "rivalry" of a general nature, pretty much by definition, but "a rivalry" as thing unto itself is not encyclopedia material unless there is a lot of significant, independent, and non-local coverage. Otherwise it's like writing about local bands and restaurants.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as this rivalry – defined not only as a "rivalry" in the "competitive" sense, but also as an annual series of official matchups –– meets WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE search would have revealed many in-depth sources over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time (several of which have now been added to this article): "UAB, Auburn Begin Friendly Cage Rivalry" (about the first game in 1982); "Auburn, UAB renew entertaining rivalry" (1986); "Eagles: AU–UAB is healthy" (1990); "It's time to get reacquainted – Auburn–UAB: old rivalry, new faces" (1994); and "Lots of firsts should add a touch of drama to Auburn–UAB rivalry" (1996). Understand that not everyone likes basketball, sports, Alabama, or sports rivalry/match series articles, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to !delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: With all due respect, none of these sources appear to be significant, independent coverage of the rivalry itself. All of the sources you've added are routine game previews with no WP:SIGCOV of the rivalry itself beyond rehashing the results of previous games and quotes from the teams coaches, which it can be argued leads to independence concerns. I'm a huge college basketball fan and would have no issues keeping this article if WP:SIGCOV can be found, but WP:FAN isn't a good enough reason to keep any article. Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the articles, there are plenty of facts and figures independent of the coaches' quotes which are reported by quite a wide range of newspapers. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let&#39;srun - Can you please go into the issues with each of the sources? Specifically, the claims about these not being independent? What connections should we be aware of here between these teams and The Dothan Eagle/The Alabama Journal/The Birmingham Post? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The original sources are enough. What are the issues exactly with 1, 2, 3 and 4? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 is a fan blog, 2 is a routine game preview where the "rivalry" is a passing mention, 3 is not independent (as it is a interview of one of the teams coaches) and does not mention any rivalry, while 4 is also not independent as it is primarily interviewing one of the teams coaches. Let&#39;srun (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 - There is nothing wrong with a site that is focused on covering certain teams. I'm not seeing a brief mention in the 2nd one, that would be a sentence. For #3, the person in the article was 13 years removed from UAB and was coaching Ole Miss. Again, I see no issues with the 4th one. It seems like you are looking for articles that aren't written by anyone who covers the team regularly, has never had any affiliation with the team at any point in time and isn't interviewing anyone. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Incorrect assertion. I am looking for WP:GNG level sources written by anyone who doesn't have a direct connection to the subject, which can include team beat writers. The third source doesn't even mention any rivalry, beyond the independence concerns. Interviews aren't GNG sufficient, and if you don't know that you should not be voting at AfD. Let&#39;srun (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an unreasonable standard (and slightly incoherent) and shows why it's probably important for you @Let'srun to either 1) take a break and slow down with AfDs and PRODs, and/or 2) get some more experience in other areas of Wikipedia, especially in creating content and making edits to mainspace. We all appreciate the hard work you have put in to deletion-related activities, but lately some of your PRODs and comments are starting to look and sound a bit "off". Most importantly you have to demonstrate respect for others per WP:AGF; a bit of humility goes a long way if you are trying to build consensus, and the whole point of the AfD discussion is to build consensus. What might help is to limit yourself to three comments per AfD. You need to have confidence that if you are correct, others will recognize this and support your argument including the closer, and remember it's not a !vote-counting exercise. It's also important to be able to admit when you are wrong and just relax and let go. We all make mistakes and an important part of being smart is to know what you don't know. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom. A few obscure newspapers calling it a rivalry doesn't make it so. Also, "least appreciated", "friendly" and "entertaining" are not an indication of a noteworthy rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify: "friendly" only applied to the first match and all sports is entertainment. I actually came to this AfD discussion thinking I was going to !vote delete, and was surprised to find so much focused secondary coverage about the rivalry. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why I didn't use IDONTLIKEIT. Obscure newspapers I said, and obscure newspapers I meant: The Dothan Eagle and The Anniston Star are both in Alabama and both only publish three times a week, The Johnson City Press gets no press, and College and Magnolia is a publication about the Auburn Tigers. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So? All of that is irrelevant to determining the notability of this subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with @-- Jasulan .T  TT me 15:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the significant coverage in reliable sources presented by Cielquiparle and KatoKungLee, plus these two AL.com stories; whether the sources are considered "obscure" in a voter's eyes is irrelevant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The title of that first reference is "UAB-Auburn on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". On its way, not there, so not particularly convincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Classic WP:NOT material. I could write articles for various newspapers claiming that Cardi B and MC Lyte "on their way to becoming full-blown rap rivals" but that doesn't mean WP should have an article called "Cardi B–MC Lyte rap rivalry". This stuff is just fancruft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, you both ignore the rest of my comment and all the other sources... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I made a source table for everything currently in the article. Up to you on how to interpret it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There still is no strong emerging consensus regarding the question of the sources, hoping a second relist can help avoid a "no consensus" close. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG with the above mentioned sources. Alvaldi (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per the in-depth analysis of . Will every pair of neighbouring colleges with a varsity team end up as a "rivalry" article? The purpose of NRIVALRY is to ensure the only "rivalry" articles we have are those with a well documented history of such. In 2017, one fringe outlet described it as "on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". I doubt the six years passed since then have created a body of coverage sufficient to qualify as a documented history of rivalry. Owen&times;  &#9742;  14:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Fails GNG. Agree with eval analysis of SMcCandlish. This seems manufactured for promo/booster purposes. Owen× points out above significant information from a source. Not seeing any sources showing this meets guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  05:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep there is enough significant coverage to pass GNG based on Conyo14's source analysis above.  Frank  Anchor  16:19, 15 December 2023 (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.