Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bengals–Steelers 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bengals–Steelers rivalry

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable rivalry with no references. Others than the teams being in the same division, its not really a big deal. Coasttocoast (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article gives no indication that Steelers fans get more pumped up than usual when the opposing team is the Bengals, or vice versa. Canadiens-Nordiques this ain't. Keep. Concerns have been addressed. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WP:BEFORE. I know a bit about hockey and I can find loads of sources: Steelers, Bengals rivalry heats up, Steelers Bengals' rivalry is one-sided, but it has grown closer, The Best Rivalry In The NFL Grows, A rarity: Bengals-Steelers really is a big game, NY Times: Rare Big Game Looms for Steelers and Bengals, ESPN, etc.  A chess set is available at many stores of Bengals vs. Steelers.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS do not count as reasons to delete. One might not care that a rivalry exists, or that bigger rivalries are of longer duration, but this is still notable. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited it a bit, added the articles found as further reading, and updated tags. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, yes, I know it's football. I was only kidding. LOL. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - local Ohio papers are a source for notability, but not exactly in-depth coverage of the rivalry per se. Racepacket (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I'm torn on this one - we do not need an article for every rivalry, but the fact is that this is a prominent and notable rivalry in football. There are sources, per Bearian. And the fact is that they've played twice annually for almost 40 years, which is itself significant (with division changes, realignments, and expansion, that's a rare feat). So, I'm leaning Keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Bearian has made a very convincing case. Plenty of coverage of this rivalry, therefore its notable.   D r e a m Focus  04:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bearian has demonstrated significant sources. The only delete vote doesn't really provide a valid deletion argument. matt91486 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced sports rivalries are encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearian's research and reasoning. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very significant and widely reported on rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2009 (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.