Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan–Northwestern 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. While there seems to be some dispute over what the page should be titled and what it should include, there seems a consensus here that there is enough source material for us to have an article about this subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Michigan–Northwestern football rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article creator's stated rationale is the recent creation of a game trophy. WP:Recentism aside, per WP:Notability and WP:SIGCOV, there are not multiple, independent WP:RS citations which support a claim that there is football rivalry (game) between these two teams. While games in the football series date to 1892, we do not manifest these as rivalry articles for every long-played and routine series between conference opponents. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the announcement from the two universities and the Big Ten Conference of a rivalry game should supersede any other criteria for a rivalry game. I would also point out the fact that there is an Illinois-Michigan football series page, which is not a rivalry article, rather a routine series. If that page is allowed to stay on Wikipedia, so should the page of an announced rivalry game, as should my edits on the pages of the schools in question. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this rivalry game news has been shared across multiple independent sources unaffiliated with either university, including ESPN, 247 Sports , and the Chicago Tribune .SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * To argue your WP:Recentism point, I would like to point out the existence of numerous other rivalries in the Big Ten that have pages but very little history as well. For example, the Minnesota-Penn State football rivalry, Nebraska-Wisconsin football rivalry, and the Michigan State-Penn State football rivalry all have less history than the Michigan-Northwestern series. Even though each of these series has a trophy that has been established for longer, they have less history than two founding members of the Big Ten, who just decided to institute a rivalry trophy this year. You could say that the series is lopsided in Michigan's favor, but many rivalries are as well. Notable lopsided rivalries include the Little Brown Jug, Bedlam Series, Illibuck Trophy, and the Michigan-Michigan State football rivalry. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That other things that have articles are maybe also not rivalries doesn't mean this is one, SilverPlacebo15. What I sense here is a desire to have just about every game be an instance of a rivalry, something that is no doubt happily played up by sources such as ESPN because it generates clicks and views. Oh! It's a rivalry! Which is why RECENTISM applies--because we need to look at the long term. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that premise... you don't just see Michigan go and make a rivalry trophy with Rutgers/Maryland/Penn State just because they joined the Big Ten, or even with Indiana or Illinois with which they surely have significant history. That a program as historically significant to the history of college football as Michigan declared Northwestern to be a rival is relevant IMO. There are many historically relevant games in the series history as well. Also, if there are articles that are not rivalries, why are they not flagged for deletion, but this one is? That doesn't make sense to me. Surely Michigan/Northwestern is more of a significant rivalry than the Civil Conflict, which was literally a joke amongst the sports world. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I truly believe that the fact that both schools (not just one) and the Big Ten Conference (see commissioner Kevin Warren's statement in either article) recognize the series as a rivalry should allow it to remain on Wikipedia. Notice in the statements how both schools refer to the game as a "rivalry", and not just a "series". It's not like one school or a media organization made up the rivalry to be relevant. The rivalry was created to honor a pioneer in George Jewett who played for both storied programs and have had many historically significant games over the past 129 years. SilverPlacebo15 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: or at the very least, draftify. Honestly, I am convinced by the page creator's arguments and am not a fan that this article was AfD'd a mere two hours after its creation while it was still a stub. RECENT is not a policy-based criterion for deletion, and in fact, I believe it works against deletion in this context: [B]y documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources will hopefully be found and used later. I thought of proposing a redirect to a page for the trophy, but am noticing that trophies tend to redirect to what else? The main rivalry page. The sourcing on the trophy is quality, and it seems not unreasonable (blah blah CRYSTAL) that better sources will follow. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The series is just too lopsided for there to be anything more than a feeble token shadow of a wisp of a rivalry. As the nom has noted, the only news of this so-called rivalry is the unveiling of a trophy commemorating it. The fact that other Big Ten rivalry articles exist may just indicate that some of them should go too. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument to make. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Too lopsided? Looked at the Maryland - Penn State rivalry lately? B/w, precedential value isn't always inappropriate. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As per my original arguments, there are many other lopsided rivalry series as well, even more lopsided than the Michigan-Northwestern series. I believe that the fact that both schools and the Big Ten (check my references) refer to the game as a rivalry suggests that there is more than a mere series between conference opponents. I would also like to keep building this page as I learn more about the history between the two schools. Who knows, with the trajectory of the programs, the series may well tighten (I say this as a Michigan student and fan). (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the recent coverage of the Jewett Trophy, there is actually a lot of interesting history here. From the 1910s through the 1930s, Northwestern dominated this series, including a 1925 game that cost Michigan the national championship. The series also had a fiercely competitive period during Ara Parseghian's tenure as head coach (1956–1963). If this is kept, I'd be happy to help improve it and build it out. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed Cbl62, there are many games that can be reference to make a point that there is much more than a mere series between conference opponents. For example, Northwestern won the first game between the two programs in 1892 against a Michigan program that was the premier football program at the time. Another game could be in 1995, where an upset of #7 Michigan sprung the Wildcats on a path to their first Big Ten title since 1936. In addition, it was Northwestern's first win against Michigan in 30 years (since 1965). Similar upsets occurred in 1996 and 2000 as upsets of Michigan were key in Northwestern's only three Big Ten titles in the AP Poll era. (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is a football rivalry, coverage specific to that topic sufficient to pass the WP:GNG guideline needs to be located per WP:SIGCOV (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). In this case, such independent coverage and citations about the topic might include coverage of memorable games played in the rivalry, callouts of memorable events or plays in the rivalry, players and coaches discussing the rivalry, quotes about the rivalry, reporting of W-L records of coaches within the rivalry, and similar content which is directly framed as a football rivalry.
 * Conversely, some good-faith WP:Other stuff exists arguments and edits are conflating routine content surrounding games and scores, the actions of individual players, and similar with the immediate need to clearly demonstrate the notability of the article's topic. This can have the appearance of WP:Synthesis and create Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, due to not establishing the notability of their topic. Today's news cycle driven by the press releases of the two universities about their new trophy may or may not mean that new trophy already passes GNG. We have Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States and a naming convention for those (non-rivalry) articles which fail to establish notability as a rivalry. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we move the article to "George Jewett trophy" (as part of Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States) or that we "Delete" altogether? Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I observe there is zero sourcing of a "football rivalry" and conflation of yesterday's coverage which extensively uses "rivalry game trophy." Articles need SIGCOV about the topic which they purport. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The gist of my question is whether you would be comfortable with a result whereby the article is moved/renamed as "George Jewett trophy". Would that be appropriate in your view? Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the other responses before I voted, but my gut says the trophy will probably qualify for an article at some point if it doesn't already (and if it doesn't I'd be fine with keeping it), but I'd want a lot of the overview to be cut down and be specific to the trophy. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep there is more than enough to surpass WP:GNG. Everything else is just "song and dance" -- but I don't dance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the secondary coverage calls this a "rivalry," and we don't keep articles about two teams which just play each other a bunch of times, even if all their games receive secondary coverage. The trophy probably deserves its own article, it may be WP:TOOSOON for that coverage-wise but that might be an IAR keep, but this is clearly not a "rivalry." SportingFlyer  T · C  17:26, 5 March 2021 (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.