Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech–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. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Georgia Tech–Tennessee football rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly-sourced and probably insignificant rivalry. Most of the "coverage" seems to be hyping up the fact that the game will be played for the first time in 30 years come 2017. p b  p  04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears that this was a notable rivalry in the past--and once notability is achieved it cannot be taken away. The NBC article does reference it as a "rivalry" also.  Beef it up, don't delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The NBC Sports "article" is obviously a minimally rewritten canned press release from the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game committee. It mentions the word "rivalry," but the coverage hardly rises to the level of "significant coverage" under the general notability guidelines.  Have you found any significant coverage of this series as a traditional college rivalry in the past?  Perhaps including a discussion of the "rivalry" history, traditions, and significance to the respective teams, universities, student bodies and alumni?  In the absence of significant coverage sufficient for a stand-alone article, nothing prevents coverage of this "rivalry" in the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and Tennessee Volunteers football articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Surely if there is a rivalry given the listing of games it deals with Bobby Dodd. However, I can find nothing in newspapers, and in my experience with southern football and the SEC (a pretty firm grasp from before 1933 and after 1989), it is not one of which I have ever heard. Cake (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to give this one another look. I initially thought it was a "delete" but have changed my mind after looking more closely. Cbl62 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote withdrawn. Yes, I already planned to change my vote to something more ambivalent, thanks for the reminder. It takes some digging to find things about it, but there do seem multiple notable games, and there are sources which call it a "rivalry". Still surprised I've found little mention of Dodd as part of the rivalry as cited above. Cake (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete. This one is not clearcut, but I lean to the "delete" side based on the limited coverage I've seen so far. Will reconsider if more coverage is found. Since the two teams haven't played in almost 30 years, it is certainly not an active rivalry. In considering whether it constituted a rivalry historically, we need to dig deeper. In considering some of the intangible measures of a rivalry, I note the following: (1) trophy: No; (2) identifiable name associated with series: No; (3) length and frequency of play: Medium (series began in 1902, 43 games played in the 85 years thereafter, 35-year gap from 1911-1946, peak in 1950s-1960s, no games since 1987 but plans to renew in 2017); (4) prominence of the programs: High (two of the great powers in Southern football history - 4 national titles for Tech, 6 for Tennessee); (5) geographical proximity: Close (bordering states and only 214 miles from Knoxville to Atlanta); and (6) competitiveness - Good (series has been relatively close with Tennessee holding a 24-17 edge). Both pros and cons on intangibles; this one probably has to rise or fall based on the extent of the historical coverage. In addition to the NBC blurb found in the article, a quick search of newspapers.com turns up the following: (1) this from 1957 calling it a "fierce" football rivalry and claiming that "the Vol-Tech rivalry attained classic status" in 1956 (more like this would sway me to vote "keep"); and (2) this AP game account from 1962 referring to the two programs as rivals but having no depth regarding rivalry. If this were a true rivalry, I would expect to see more coverage of the game as a significant rivalry in the 1950s and 1960s.  Cbl62 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good find on the one about '56. It was between AP #2 and AP #3 and the underdog won. Will dig about for info pertaining to that one. Here is a similar source. Here is video. Cake (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cake. The 1957 UP article is a good one. This raises a broader point.  Where two schools have a long history of play, and have had at least a couple great, classic games between them, does this elevate the series to the level of a traditional rivalry?  Typically not.  Should such series nevertheless be covered in Wikipedia as a notable series (e.g., "Georgia Tech - Tennessee football series")?  Under existing precedent, the answer has been no.  The existing practice may or may not be correct, and this may be a broader discussion worth having at some point.  For example, in the case of Michigan (the team with which I am most familiar), we do not have stand-alone articles concerning Michigan's series with Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, or Northwestern.  These series are not "rivalries", but in each case there have been a number of historical games where the two teams met in classic games when both were among the top teams in the country. I'm not advocating a change in policy at this time, but "Georgia Tech - Tennessee" might qualify, if at all, as a notable "series" rather than as a true "rivalry".  Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm . . . The focus in these AfDs has always been on whether a series qualifies as traditional "rivalry".  This may not be the correct analysis in all cases.  There are likely some long-standing "series" that are notable under WP:GNG even though they are not "rivalries".  It may be that we are struggling to fit square pegs into round holes. Some of these square pegs may be notable even though they don't fit into the "rivalry" hole. Cbl62 (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. In my own area of research, I have wondered whether I should add a bit about Michigan and Texas to the Vandy article. I trust you know about the Michigan series, and for 7 out of 8 seasons before the Red River rivalry gets played regularly between OU-UT at the state fair, it was Vandy-UT. Perhaps it can be done like how the Florida Gators article deals with Alabama. Georgia-Yale, and other regularly scheduled intersectional contests, are worth consideration for mention somewhere, even if perhaps an article on the rivalry is overkill. Maybe a game article for the Tech-Tennessee '56 matchup? Cake (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I created Illinois–Michigan football series concerning a notable, non-rivalry, series. A square peg that meets WP:GNG on its own merit. Cbl62 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I expanded 1922 Michigan vs. Vanderbilt football game to include the prior games even though there's one more meeting, perhaps a similar case. Cake (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having looked more deeply at this series, I am changing my vote to "Keep".  Whether or not it qualifies as a "traditional rivalry", this qualifies as a notable, historical football series.  The series dates back to 1902, will soon be revived, and reached a peak of competitiveness from 1946 to 1970 when both teams were football powerhouses. During that time, there were a number of classic games in which both teams were highly ranked or in which unranked Tennessee squads (four times, actually) upset highly-ranked Georgia Tech teams.  The games drew national press coverage and, in some cases, national television coverage in an era when national TV coverage was not common. With coverage like this calling it a "fierce" football rivalry and claiming that "the Vol-Tech rivalry attained classic status", it could be considered a notable rivalry, though I think a move to Georgia Tech–Tennessee football series might be more apt. Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or better yet, perhaps the content could be added to the various single-season articles about the Tennessee Volunteers from 1946 to 1970, the overwhelming majority of which presently exist as two and three-sentence stubs that do not even mention Georgia Tech . . . and form the core of new Georgia Tech single-season articles that have yet to be created. Those single-game descriptions already have a home without creating an entirely new class of articles.  Robbing content from one class of articles (single-season articles) to create a new class ("football series") . . . . is what exactly?  Not including this core content in the single-season articles makes the single-season articles redundant.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Robbing content" -- seriously? Single-season articles have a horizontal and tree-level focus on one team in a particular year, whereas rivalry/series articles have a vertical and forest-level focus, examining the interaction between two programs against a historical, multi-year perspective. I think the multi-year, historical perspective is very useful and in no way takes away from, or renders "redundant", single-season articles.  I would typically expect the season articles to have more detailed accounts of each game, and a rivalry/series article to have a more forest-level approach to the historical interaction.  No reason both classes of article can't co-exist, and indeed, they already do. Of course, there are WP:GNG limits on both classes of article. I am in no way suggesting that every series warrants this type of historical treatment in a separate article, only those which are truly notable. Happy to discuss the parameters/limits for such articles in another forum if you'd like. Cbl62 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We already summarize individual games in multiple articles. For example, the November 1887 Michigan-Notre Dame game is discussed in at least three places: (1) 1887 ND, (2) 1887 Mich, and (3) Mich-ND rivalry. Each article serves a different, valid purpose. Cbl62 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously. Focus on the problem, not the metaphor.  In your newly created Illinois vs. Michigan "series" article, almost every one of the game summaries is a duplicate of content that should exist in the non-existent Illinois single-game articles.  Instead of building the single-season articles you have advocated in the past, you now have proposed the creation of a competitor class.  Stripped of the individual game summaries, the one to three-paragraph "forest-level" summary of the series properly belongs in the parent articles about the two teams.  Creating a new class of articles for notable, non-rivalry series is poorly conceived and the content in most instances will be redundant to single-season articles and parent team articles.  We are already unable to police rivalry articles in a meaningful way, largely because of the fragmented and often shallow views on what constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG; expanding the field to so-called "notable series" loosens an already ill-defined standard, and the expansion will not be restricted to a few "meaningful" series.  It will be the exception that swallows the rule, as every series will become a separate article -- the only difference being that we will call it a "series" rather than a "rivalry".  Most of our rivalry articles exist as a series record table with minimal introductory text, and this will be exactly the pattern for your proposed new class of "series" articles.  Stop and think before you go down this path; the consequences are obvious.  It is not an accident that no other sports WikiProject has conceived of a comparable class of articles as you are now proposing.  What we will have is a confusing mess of team articles, season articles, rivalry articles, and series articles, where it is unclear where content is supposed to go, and where the content of articles will duplicate, and in some cases contradict, each other.  The creation of an entirely new class of articles really needs to be a carefully considered decision of WikiProject College football, and not as an aside of an AfD, and not decided in a moment of "enthusiasm".  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The consequence I foresee, if appropriately limited to truly notable series, is the enrichment of the encyclopedia with historical perspective on notable series. The merits of Illinois–Michigan football series (or Chicago–Purdue football rivalry, as another recently-created example) is not the subject of this AfD, but I'm happy to discuss the merits of that article on its talk page if you would like. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In all fairness to DL, Cbl62, this situation was discussed before, back in July 2012. So, there is a certain amount of prior consensus here, as far as "series" articles go. As for this article, in particular, I'm not going to vote here, one way or the other, simply because I'm not familiar enough with SEC football to be able to contribute intelligently on this particular subject. At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that we neither need or want any "Boston College–Iowa State football series" type articles (not that people haven't tried), but in order to prevent them we probably do need to draw the line, somewhere. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, Ej, I did say in 2012 that non-rivalry "series" articles should be discouraged (as in the case of Ole Miss-Notre Dame that you linked). I still hold that position for the most part, but my view has softened a bit since then, and there are some series that are so clearly notable (I submit that Illinois–Michigan football series fits that bill) that we ought to have coverage.  Of course, the tricky part is where to draw the line, and we'll have to work through that issue, though that discussion is probably better handled outside the context of this AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate to see two of the best editors in these parts so often go at it. Hopefully it is sometimes fruitful. I must say I see more of cbl62's side, and see nothing wrong with covering a team's games for a notable season as well as for a notable opponent to bridge the gap and build the web between single games and all of conference, conference seasons, and teams. Guided by the assessment section, here is my imperfect, Titian-inspired rendition of our knowledge tree at WPCFB: 1. The vertical dimension represents importance and the lines of interaction as a set to its members, and thus should go both ways. Cake (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This was a rivalry before Georgia Tech left the SEC. Even when Tech left the SEC they still meet annually. When they announced that Tech-UT to play in 2017 in Atlanta, it mentions “This will be the renewing of a long and beloved rivalry that’s been off the board for far too long,” said Percy Vaughn, Peach Bowl, Inc. chairman in a released statement. “And it’s a great addition to the long-standing ACC vs. SEC rivalry games we have been able to put together.” CollegeRivalry (talk), 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 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.