Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa-Penn State 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 but repurpose to include far more references to wrestling. Since the main thrust of the notability argument here is clearly that a wrestling rivalry exists. Perhaps also rename the article but I'll punt this to the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Iowa-Penn State Rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The two football teams have met on and off since the 1930s, more regularly of course since PSU joined the Big 10, but the game lacks any of the hallmarks of a "rivalry" - most particularly, 3d party reliable sourcing beyond the rare stray characterization of the series as such. JohnInDC (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Discussion of such a rivalry is nonexistent in reliable third-party sources. Lizard  (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or rename to List of Iowa-Penn State games or include as part of another list. Yeah I couldn't find much in the way of third party sourcing as a 'rivalry'. This content could potentially be useful as a list article however, or as part of another list. Changed to Keep with regards to the wrestling rivalry which has significant sourcing to meet GNG. The article has substantially changed since the AfD started, and I've shifted things around a bit to represent the greater notability of the wrestling rivalry (moved it to the top). Between the wrestling and the football, there is plenty here to meet GNG and it would be a shame to throw out useful content. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand to include wrestling, based mainly on the sources that describe the wrestling rivalry between these two schools as having become one of the fiercest in the country during the past decade. For example "Iowa-Penn State is the nation’s fiercest wrestling rivalry, and right now it isn’t close"; "Penn State-Iowa wrestling rivalry 'changes direction' with sold-out dual"; "Penn State-Iowa wrestling: Hot ticket, hotter rivalry". --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting idea. I'd probably support that as well. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The schools appear to have an actual "rivalry" when it comes to wrestling, see http://www.ncaa.com/video/wrestling/2017-01-31/high-five-wrestling-rivalries-augsburg-wartburg-oklahoma-state-oklahoma, and it'd be fine to rename and recast the article as "Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry". But the notable competition in one sport doesn't bleed into the others.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is a recent creation (September 18), apparently as part of the buildup to this weekend's (September 23) football game between the two schools. The wrestling angle is a red herring.  The main topic of the article (and infobox) was and remains a purported football rivalry, and wrestling was not even mentioned until after the AfD started.  If someone were to create an article about the wrestling rivalry, its notability could and should be judged separately. However, the football series does not have the characteristics of a true rivalry or sufficiently notable series. Relevant criteria include: (1) geographic proximity - Iowa City and State College, PA, are roughly 800 miles apart, separated by three states, and lack the geographic proximity (typically intra-state or border-state series) that contribute to rivalry status; (ii) trophy - there is no trophy (e.g., Little Brown Jug) or official name for the series (e.g., Red River Showdown);  (iii) frequency/longevity - the teams did meet in 1930 but did not meet again until 41 years later, are not in the same division of the Big Ten, and have met only 26 times in total; and (iv) classic matchups - there have been zero instances in which the teams played while both were ranked in the top 10 and only three instances in which both were ranked in the top 25: 1984 (#5 vs. #12), 1995 (#18 vs. #19) and 2010 (#22 vs. #18).  All in all, I don't see enough here to convince me that this is a true rivalry or that it is a sufficiently notable non-rivalry series to warrant having its own stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NRIVALRY, sports rivalries aren't inherently notable and need to meet the GNG. That means not the routine sports coverage churned out on a daily basis by bored sportswriters on deadline puffing up the Saturday game as a Great And Enduring Rivalry.  What the pluperfect hell, this "rivalry" is all of 26 games over the course of ninety freaking years?   Nha Trang  Allons! 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - A modern wrestling series with the sourcing I see in the article is notable, in my opinion. The word, "rivalry" here is a bit of a red herring, as it is often used as a synonym for series in the body and the headline of articles, and many series may feel like not much of a rivalry but still may get coverage in itself (rather than just a way to talk about an upcoming game in the context of a previous game between the teams). Smmurphy(Talk) 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, it should be moved to "Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry". There is absolutely no showing that there is a rivalry or notable series in football (which remains the focus of the infobox and the majority of the article).  Cbl62 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving seems like a fair idea to me; if the rivalry broadened to include football (or academic decathlon or whatever), then removing wrestling from the article title would be easy enough. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Clear out the football stuff and move to Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry. There is seriously no evidence from sources that this is an actual rivalry in football or really any other sport. ansh 666 06:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to clear out the football stuff. The names of the teams transfer across sports, so the football stuff can be kept as part of the overall article as long as it is verifiable, even if it mostly the wrestling stuff that demonstrates notability. I'd like to see some precedent that similar college sport team rivalry articles are divided by sport before I'd endorse throwing out this useful info. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  23:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While there is inconsistency, rivalries between the same schools in different sports are most effectively dealt with separately. See Michigan–Michigan State men's ice hockey rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State men's soccer rivalry, Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry. See also Alabama–Auburn men's basketball rivalry, Alabama-Auburn football rivalry, Florida–Florida State football rivalry, Florida–Florida State men's basketball rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Having nominated this for deletion, I think that renaming it as Iowa-Penn State wrestling rivalry is a good idea, better in fact than deletion. The schools' competition in wrestling (in contrast to football) seems to qualify as a notable rivalry, worthy of an article.  The football stuff however would need to go.  If it's not a "rivalry" in that sport too then it's just clutter, a recitation of a non-notable series of games between two teams that now find themselves in the same FBS conference.  And if non-notable football is worthy of inclusion then why not also the non-notable tennis, or swimming, or basketball series between them?  JohnInDC (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the wrestling rivalry is notable. The football and other sports can be ancillary inclusions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Paul McDonald, JohnInDC, and others. The wrestling rivalry should be the main focus of the article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: the renamed, essentially new, article shouldn’t include facts about non-rivalry sports. JohnInDC (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, reliable sources talk about this like it is a big thing: "Iowa-Penn State is the nation’s fiercest wrestling rivalry", "The Iowa vs. Penn State rivalry in college football has ballooned in importance, especially in recent years" Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 23:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah there are a couple of good sources for the football side too, I can't see removing the football material. If people object to the football stuff and the wrestling stuff being in the same article I think they should independently exist as separate articles. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  06:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree re the football side. It's thin, or stale, or bloggy.  There's precious little on it.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the recent changes? Two reliable sources is enough for GNG, we have that and more for both the football and wrestling sides of this. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  11:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I did look at them.  For football I see a 2010 article from "Sportsthenandnow.com" describing a football "rivalry", which is the identical 2010 article cited at bleacherreport.com (so just one source, and seven years old to boot); a 2014 ESPN article about a weird 6-4 game that doesn't mention "rivalry", and 4 routine ESPN game summaries, none of which mention "rivalry".  So I stand by my observation.  (As I've said above, I don't dispute the wrestling rivalry.)  JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * i’m also not sure about “two source“ rule. I always thought the standard was “multiple“. JohnInDC (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Two is 'multiple'. Also please note what someone else said above, the term 'rivalry' is a red herring. A rivalry means 'among the games that they have played against each other' not "rivalry" in the colloquial sense (any two teams playing against each other are 'rivals'). —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  11:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. If "two" were "multiple", or enough, then all the Wikipedia guidance would say "more than one reliable source", not "multiple" when describing what's sufficient.  (Also "multiple" means "several", which 2 isn't.)  Separately, what you're describing is not a "rivalry" but a "series".  A "rivalry" in the sports / college sports / college football sports context has a more specific meaning, usually (as described above), a series that has been elevated in some fashion by, e.g., a name for the annual matchup ("Apple Cup"), a trophy ("Little Brown Jug") or at the very least multiple reliable 3d party sources that refer to it as a "rivalry".  By your definition, literally any series of matches between any two competitors in a conference is a notable "rivalry" because the games are covered by major media.  But that's the very kind of ROUTINE coverage that doesn't make the cut.  As for wrestling - I'm sold here.  But football?  Nah.  Someone seven years ago described it as a rivalry and few if any other sources picked up that characterization in the intervening years (when the teams were routinely playing).  It's not a "rivalry".  (I'll either find some links to the College Football project page, or find someone who can direct you to prior discussions on this point.)  JohnInDC (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are being a bit too rigid, but I'll set aside the 'rivalry' argument for others to make. Multiple is clearly "more than one" in my mind (and in the dictionary), but I don't think this is the place to quibble over the meaning of policy, feel free to move this discussion over to my talk page if you wish to discuss it further. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  13:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are multiple links to prior rivalry discussions (followed by deletions) - there are probably scores of others too: Articles for deletion/Florida–South Carolina football rivalry; Articles for deletion/Mississippi State - Vanderbilt football rivalry; Articles_for_deletion/Arkansas-Baylor_football_rivalry; Articles for deletion/Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry.  There's also a good bit of discussion at the project talk page here that is helpful.  This isn't rigid - it's just what WP:NRIVALRY implies.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment My fellow editors, this discussion is to ask the question, "Should the article be deleted?" -- determining the content of the article may come in to play some about that question, but I do not believe it is a primary deletion question but instead is an editing question. Let me encourage all editing comments to move to the article talk page itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken and thank you for the gentle reminder. JohnInDC (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2017 (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.