Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil Conflict (college football game)


 * 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. No consensus for a specific action has emerged herein. Discussion regarding a potential redirect or page merge can continue on the article's talk page. North America1000 04:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Civil Conflict (college football game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a rivalry. UCF denies any rivalry. UCONN basically just created a trophy. Even the sources cited in the article criticize UCONN for creating a trophy for a rivalry that doesn't exist. Joeykai (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It may not be a "rivalry", but whatever it is, it clearly meets WP:GNG just from the sources in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note that based on Dirtlawyer1's reasoning and the ongoing discussion I'm reading, I'm considering changing my !vote to merge. I will not !vote delete, because there is too much coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The nom appears to take issue with whether this event should be notable, but that's irrelevant to determining whether it is notable. Based on sources in the article, it passes WP:GNG. I would agree with a need for a copyedit, though, as it may be factually untrue to call this a rivalry game if one team denies its existence. I'll discuss that on the talk page, as that likely will be controversial. ~ RobTalk 17:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Whatever it is, it's notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - We do not have stand-alone articles for two-game rivalries or game series. That's silly.  I remind everyone above who has already commented, that notability is not the only measure of a topic's suitability for a stand-alone Wikipedia article.  This is a news article about a dispute whether a rivalry exists per WP:NOTNEWS; that is not a suitable basis for a stand-alone rivalry article when other viable alternatives to preserve the content exist.  Per WP:GNG:


 * . . . significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . .


 * The relatively minor content of this article should be merged to the relevant CFB season articles: 2013 UCF Knights football team, 2014 UCF Knights football team , 2013 Connecticut Huskies football team, and 2014 Connecticut Huskies football team and Connecticut Huskies football. Per the longstanding precedents of WP:CFB, that's the way we handle non-rivalry CFB game content.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)  Merge proposal revised to acknowledge that the "rivalry" trophy did not exist before June 2015, and UConn's self-awarded "rivalry" trophy only includes the 2014 win by UConn, and no game has been played since UConn coach unilaterally declared the series to be a "rivalry."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I was asked to reconsider my vote based on the above, so I'll comment on these arguments. WP:NOTNEWS would be applicable if this were likely to be a news story that does not extend beyond a few news cycles (i.e. no enduring significance). The persistence with which Diaco has treated this "rivalry" suggests that this will not fade away in the short-term. It's more than a simple news event. The referenced text from WP:GNG essentially reminds the reader of WP:IAR, so that only applies if consensus suggests the article does not belong. It's inefficient to duplicate this information in four articles, requiring each to be separately maintained, so I don't believe WP:IAR makes much sense here. Lastly, consensus on non-rivalry game content is not applicable here. This might not be a rivalry depending on your opinion of the requirements of one, but it's something more than a non-rivalry. ~ RobTalk 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The referenced text from WP:GNG essentially reminds the reader of WP:IAR". No, Rob, that's not it at all; this is not an IAR argument, and it can't be "IAR" when the GNG guideline itself expltcitly states that "significant coverage is not a guarantee".  The referenced GNG passage allows that there are other suitability standards that apply to stand-alone articles, and permits even notable topics to be covered as part of a larger article.  This article is essentially about a weird one-sided attempt to create a new CFB "rivalry" via marketing/publicity by one of the two universities; that makes it "newsy", especially when every reliable news source article cited was published in an 8-day period in June 2015.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to put WP:UNDUE weight on USER:Dirtlawyer1's comments. Yes, "UNDUE" pertains to article content and I'm extrapolating for the discussion here.  My point is that I take exception to the phrase "We do not have stand-alone articles for two-game rivalries or game series" -- with emphasis on "We":  The editor makes a sound argument and it should be considered, but it does not necessarily represent consensus.  Who exactly is this "We" that the editor references in the argument?  Is there a policy someplace?  Doubtful.  So please consider the argument but do not inflate it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am happy to link the 30+ AfD discussions for CFB rivalry articles in last year, Paul, but is that really necessary? You participated in almost all of those AfDs, and you are well aware of the outcomes that resulted in "delete" or "merge" in all but one of those discussions, and in each case you participated, you were in the minority position, and opposed to the merge/delete position supported by a majority of our fellow CFB editors.  Suggesting that I am sort of cowboy/renegade, advancing a position that is not amply supported by dozens of AfD precedents (and in which you advanced similar arguments that were rejected) is disingenuous and inaccurate.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should put together an essay on college football rivalries. Other editors could join in and it could be a "we".  But until then, know that AFD Discussions are not policy.  In almost any AFD discussion you will find dissent.  Third, if you would add up the count of all those involved in the 30+ AFD discussions, you would get a finite number of editors--how many I'm not sure, but it's safe to say less than 20 and probably closer to five or ten.  Other AFDs are valuable as a reference, but WP:OTHERSTUFF does or does not exist does not equate to a decision supported by entire body of Wikipedia.  Therefore, when making a post on any discussion as an individual, it's best to avoid implying that any one editor speaks for consensus.  If the consensus has spoken on the subject, then link to it.  If consensus has not spoken, then it isn't "we" but "me" and that should be made clear.  It's only fair.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "AfD Discussions are not policy." Yes, Paul, I know that; guidelines are not policy, essays are not policy, WikiProject standards are not policy, and talk page consensus regarding a particular topic is not policy; only identified Wikipedia policies are "policy."  That's also completely irrelevant.  AfD outcomes represent consensus on the notability and suitability of particular topics for inclusion as stand-alone articles.  As for the participation rate for other recent AfDs for CFB rivalry articles, the overwhelming majority were 8–2, 7–2, 6–2, 7–1 or 6–1 !votes in favor of merge or deletion, and most of the participants were regular CFB editors.  When there are 30+ such discussions over a period of months, all with similar results, it suggests a very strong sense of where the concerned community members' opinion lies.  As for your suggestion that those prior AfD outcomes do "not equate to a decision supported by entire body of Wikipedia," that's a massive red herring: it is a relatively rare AfD in which more than a dozen individual editors participate, but that does not make the AfD outcome any less valid.  If you want those previous AfD decisions reviewed by the larger community, please take them to DRV -- but I believe you will find no reasonable basis for overturning those outcomes.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Any way you slice it, you still only represent yourself and not multiple people. You are not a "we" and that's undue weight.  Want to reference the other discussions?  Fine--provide the links.  If others agree, then they will agree.  Don't !Vote for other people that are not present.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And other CFB editors have now been invited to participate -- I'll let them speak for themselves. And I have never "!voted for other people" -- care to strike that?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I will not strike that comment. You clearly stated "we".--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral. While there are a lot of differences as well, this AfD brings to mind the discussion last year at Articles for deletion/Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry where a "Broken Chair" rivalry trophy was invented as an Internet joke but ended up garnering substantial coverage. I ended up neutral there and come out the same way here.  On the one hand, the coverage is substantial, including the major national media outlets.  On the other hand, for this to be a true "rivalry," a longer history should exist. Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a "true rivalry," then why not merge this content to the season articles, or perhaps more appropriately, to the main Connecticut Huskies football article? As GNG notes, "significant coverage in reliable sources" is not a guarantee of a stand-alone Wikipedia article; it is perfectly acceptable to cover a notable topic as part of a larger article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The merge proposal may or may not have merit, but it would potentially require duplicating (and then separately maintaining) the content in as many as six different places; the UConn and UCF program articles as well as the 2014/2015 UConn and UCF team/season articles. Rob raised a reasonable point above: "It's inefficient to duplicate this information in four articles, requiring each to be separately maintained." Again, though, I'm remaining neutral at this point.  I'll keep an eye on the arguments as they develop. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have revised the merge proposal above to acknowledge that (1) the "rivalry" trophy did not exist before June 2015, (2) the self-awarded trophy only includes the 2014 win by UConn, (3) and no game has been played since UConn coach unilaterally declared the series to be a rivalry in June 2015. The net effect of which is this bizarre one-sided "rivalry" content should be merged primarily to the main Connecticut Huskies football article, as UCF does not even consider UConn to be a rival.  There are no real "maintenance" issues involved for the season articles, any more than there is maintenance for any other CFB season articles: for meaningful rivalries, we simply note that the annual game is one in the rivalry series, and then discuss the rivalry in the context of that particular season if it's worth mentioning.  This is no different.  Easy-peasy, and completely consistent.  Also, given that all of the significant coverage of this rivalry in reliable sources was published between June 1 and June 8, 2015, I would also suggest to you that a pretty strong WP:NOTNEWS argument exists, too.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (for now):A coach has stated a football rivalry exists between the two teams. Whether or not this will become a true rivalry will be determined as future games are played. The article is properly cited and comes from reliable sources.  My guess is it will be talked about at least for this years game. If it washes out after this year and nobody talks about it next year, then I can be convinced to change the article's status.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect (for now). This isn't a "rivalry", not yet anyhow, notwithstanding one coach's efforts to declare it as such.  The indifference of the opponent to this young series - or its refusal, so far, to regard it as anything but a routine recurring future event - pretty much ends that discussion.  As I said on the article Talk page, calling this a "rivalry" makes as much sense as calling my crush on Angelina Jolie a "romance".  The Connecticut coach's motivational / publicity efforts have received a bit of media attention, but it's been a pretty quick flurry, and if it ends there then even the term, "Civil Conflict", fails notability.  So what I would do is create a redirect to the Connecticut football page where maybe there's a quick paragraph about it (not to UCF, to which this event is, for now, meaningless), with an option to revive the standalone article if this appellation and characterization take hold.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said in the text, the only difference I have is your comparison with your "crush" on Angelina Jolie. If you stated that publicly (or if I did for that matter), you would not be referenced by the media.  Unfortuntely the UConn coach has, and I'm sure will be talked about at least for the game in question and at least for this year.  If someone wants to get further information about it, Wikpedia should be the place for them to look, however this AfD finally gets resolved....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's not me but Donald Trump who proclaims his affection. It's still not a romance!  And in this case, a redirect to two sentences at the Husky's football page is quite sufficient.  JohnInDC (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Touchè!....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * JohnInDC, was Sam Harris talking about you here? :) Jweiss11 (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That friend he ran into on the street - whose life had been changed by his fated alliance? I don't want to brag on myself, but ... (That was pretty good - thanks!)  JohnInDC (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG:
 * . . . significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . .
 * There are other measures of the suitability of a topic for a stand-alone article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect this cooked-up, publicity-stunt rivalry; it has had it's 15 minutes of fame.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't doubt that it is a cooked-up, publicity-stunt rivalry. But with the coverage it seems to have received, the publicity stunt has worked and I believe it has become notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Three years from now, after no one has applied the phrase ever again to the contest, the article will look pretty silly.  We should wait to see if it takes hold, and redirect in the meantime.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL That's amazing how you can see into the future three years from now and let us know if the phrase has or has not been applied. Let's go to the track!  However, I believe that there is enough coverage to stand on WP:GNG at present, which should be the question at hand and not trying to predict the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the mere passage of time can render an article not notable (as it would, if these three weeks turn out to be the entire lifespan of this matter), then it probably wasn't notable in the first place. I can say that now, without any special clairvoyance at all.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speculation has no place in AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bob Diaco, and leave a brief paragraph at the target explaining & putting the situation in context. I'm not as concerned with what either team's opinion is on the status of a rivalry (should we delete Texas–Texas A&M football rivalry just because the Longhorns want to pretend that A&M doesn't even exist anymore?) as I am about the facts. And, in this case, the fact is that this is a purported "rivalry" between two schools 1,200 miles away from each other, without any kind of common history or culture between them, and with a grand total of two all-time meetings on the field. To sum it up, this "rivalry" doesn't seem to have any kind of meaning or significance to anyone outside of Diaco, therefore I believe it's probably best to briefly address it on his page, and move on. And, I agree with Dirtlawyer that there are some legitimate WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS concerns with the article as it currently stands. I also note that, should this article be kept, it's title should be changed, it is currently disambiguated where no disambiguation is necessary, as Civil Conflict remains a redlink. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Connecticut Huskies football, 2015 Connecticut Huskies football team, Bob Diaco, and/or other appropriate articles. This two-game rivalry isn't even recognized by both parties.  The significant third-party coverage seems to be more about the controversy surrounding the one-sided conception and questionable nature of this alleged rivalry.  Some description of this is probably appropriate in the aforementioned pre-existing articles, but a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2015 (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.