Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carolina–Marshall 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. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

East Carolina–Marshall football rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NRIVALRY as none of these sources establish said "rivalry"--or even use that term. They played each other yearly from 2005-2013 because they were in the same conference, with no other significant events occurring. Everything here is WP:ROUTINE. Tavix | Talk  23:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not finding significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources dealing with this 8-year series as a true and notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Week Keep - As anyone who has participated in AfDs for college football rivalry articles will tell you, I am no easy "keep" !vote for CFB rivalries. I believe that such articles must clearly satisfy the general notability guidelines to qualify for inclusion as stand-alone Wikipedia articles.  No, this East Carolina–Marshall rivalry series is not Alabama–Auburn, Florida–Georgia, Michigan–Ohio State, Oklahoma–Texas or UCLA–USC, but it is a legitimate college rivalry that evokes real emotion for the alumni and fans of these two programs.  Here's a sample of the the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources:


 * "Marshall football: East Carolina game more than a rivalry," Charleston Daily Mail (11/25/2013);
 * "Rivalry matchup to decide C-USA's East Division," The Herald-Dispatch (11/26/2013);
 * "Taliaferro tears up father's alma mater," The Herald-Dispatch (12/1/2013);
 * "ECU, Marshall to renew football series," Wilimington Star-News (4/3/2014);
 * "ECU, Marshall renew football rivalry," The Viriginian-Pilot (4/3/2014);
 * "ECU, Marshall, bound by 1970 tragedy, to play final game as league rivals," The Fayetteville Observer (11/28/2013).


 * Mind you, this is what I found with a simple Google search in the space of 20 minutes; I have not even bothered yet to run searches in Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, or Google News Archive. Sure, the coverage is local and regional (in three states: North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia), but this is a rivalry between Mid-Majors, and the coverage does have depth and detail discussing the history and significance of the series as a rivalry.  These are not passing mentions or trivial uses of the word "rivalry."  The coverage is of sufficient depth and breadth of this series as a rivalry to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG, and there is more out there to be found by searching.  The only reason I'm calling this a "weak keep" is because of the relatively low number of games in the series to date (15).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, though these appear to be local media outlets in the Carolinas-Virginias where the two schools are located. Did you find any coverage of this series as a notable rivalry in national (or regional) media outlets? Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I have backed out the previous close and relisted this, per Deletion review/Log/2015 April 4 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by . The sources call this a "rivalry", so there are no WP:SYNTHESIS problems. The sources are from three states in the United States: North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Dirtlawyer called these "local and regional sources"; called them "local sources". I agree with Dirtlawyer. Charleston Daily Mail is a Pulitzer Prize–winning paper that serves Charleston, West Virginia, the capital and largest city of the state. The Virginian-Pilot is Virginia's largest daily, having a daily circulation of 156,968. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Virginian-Pilot is also located outside the immediate market of East Carolina and Marshall -- over 130 and 460 miles away, respectively. These are not all hometown newspapers for the two universities.  Moreover, the coverage is significant and discusses the history of the rivalry and its significance to the two schools in some depth.  I do agree with Cbl62 to the extent that national and regional coverage should be accorded greater weight in determining the notability of CFB rivalries, but weak national coverage (e.g., one and two-sentence mentions of a "rivalry") is not weightier than significant coverage in regional media.  What we really need is a more detailed specific notability standard for sports rivalries for a greater measure consistency in these rivalry AfDs.  More importantly, we also need to better define the meaning of "significant" coverage for all AfDs -- the present standard is surprisingly malleable depending on the subject area, the editors involved, and the closing administrator applying it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that The Virginian-Pilot is a non-local source, which helps bolster the case for notability. While national and regional coverage are better than local coverage, I think we should rely on Notability rather than a more detailed specific notability standard for sports rivalries. provided a convincing argument for doing that: "Our notability rule is very old and very simple. If it has significant (more than a couple of paragraphs) coverage in reliable sources (note plural) then it's notable. If it doesn't then it isn't. This rule is simple and simplistic and it leads to simple and simplistic outcomes, and I understand why some editors want something more subtle and nuanced but there are really good reasons why it has to be simple. You see, there wouldn't be much point going through the effort of researching and writing an article if people could come along and randomly delete it, would there? So we have to have simple, clear rules that are consistently enforced. That's what enables people to write content without going through a committee process first. This is why it's so important to stick rigidly to the WP:GNG even when it gives outcomes that might seem anomalous, such as in this case. It will certainly take careful thought and good editorial judgment to keep the article on the right side of WP:FRINGE. But it's a much more serious mistake to delete an article on a notable topic, or to try to re-define notability so it means something other than significant coverage in reliable sources. —S Marshall at Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll)" And: "In recent years it's somehow become acceptable to look at non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and claim that the sources somehow don't 'count' towards notability. Editors have started to use 'notable' to mean 'a worthy subject about which we have decided to permit you to write an article', and we need to kill that off. Let's be clear here: notability isn't an encyclopaedic concept. You can bet that the editors of Britannica aren't sitting around obsessing about notability! It's purely a product of Wikipedian culture and it exists only because of our open editing environment. The meaning of 'notability' is simple and simplistic and it's quite clear from the GNG: non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source. That's it. The reason why it's so simplistic is to provide us with an objective test which was meant to cut through these endless, circular notability debates. This lady passes it, and with all due respect for the ingenious arguments offered by other debate participants, the alternative view that the sources somehow don't 'count' is quite untenable. ... I don't think my position is an 'argument'. It's a fairly uncontroversial statement of what notability meant when it was devised. In origin, notability's not an encyclopaedic concept, it's a tool for detecting and eliminating marketing spam. I don't believe the editors of any paper encyclopaedia including Britannica ever think about notability (but then they wouldn't have articles on Australian boxers' daughters very often either, of course). I think the idea that notability requires being notable for something is tautological; but I suspect you mean notable for an achievement of some kind, don't you? If so, that's a very new school idea that only surfaced in the last three years or so. —S Marshall at Articles for deletion/Renee Gartner" Cunard (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep meets WP:N. Sources are a bit more local than ideal, but it meets our sourcing requirements. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am persuaded by Cunard's arguments above that the coverage is not local in nature and instead consists of coverage in major metropolitan dailies.  As he notes, these are major news outlets with substantial circulation and not just local or small-town newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The teams play one another a lot because they're in the same league/conference. Suggestions that this rises to being a "rivalry" are pure synthesis. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no violation of WP:SYNTHESIS when the sources posted by Dirtlawyer1 at 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC) say this rises to being a "rivalry". Cunard (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to pass WP:GNG to me. I do like the quoted material from S Marshall, I've been trying to formulate those words for several years now.  Very clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 17 April 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.