Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS


 * 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. Courcelles 00:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

On behalf of  —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS. The rationale is that the page was created by a blocked/banned user (User:Latish redone), as well as failing the general notability guideline, in that the topic of most-played rivalries has failed to receive non-routine coverage in reliable sources.


 * Delete Support my own nomination for the reasons provided. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The applicable notability guideline for lists is WP:LISTN, which states in pertinent part, "Notability of lists . . . is based on the group.  One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. . . .  Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."


 * In this particular case, the primary subject, college sports rivalries are notable, as demonstrated by the presence of the stand-alone Wikipedia article regarding "college rivalry," as well as a separate category, "Category:College football rivalries in the United States." Further demonstrating the notability of the topic is the fact that each of the college football rivalries included within the list are separately notable, and are linked to stand-alone Wikipedia articles.  In the case of this list, the creator chose to limit the list only to those college football rivalry games that have been played 100 or more times; this is consistent with WP:LISTN: "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."  In keeping with the guidelines of WP:LISTPURP, this list also serves recognized valid purposes as both an information source and gateway navigational tool which are not being served by any other article or list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The page was created by a blocked/banned user. That itself is a criterion for speedy deletion, which was rejected. You have failed to address that reason for deletion in your rationale for keeping the article. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not specifically address the speedy deletion criteria because I didn't believe it necessary. The G5 criterion states in pertinent part that "[p]ages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others" may be speedily deleted.  This fails on two points.  First, the article creator was neither banned nor blocked at the time the article was created ("created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block").  Second, significantly more than half of the total content of the article was added by editors other than the article creator ("and which have no substantial edits by others").  In short, G5 does not apply by its own terms.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that the G5 criterion is to be interpreted in that way. Latish redone is blocked/banned due to vandalism by his/her sockpuppet account Rhinoselated, right? Then the issue isn't that Latish redone was banned/blocked "at the time the article was created", rather, the creation of the article should be treated as vandalism since the accounts were indef-blocked for being vandalism-only accounts. Also, it is not true that the article has had substantial content added by others. The original version of the article contains the vast majority of the content that is currently in the article now. Other editors have only edited to add their own commentary and to "update" (but not fully) particular entries in the table. So I would say that the article content is contributed primarily by a vandalism-only account. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Any reason why this information should not be merged into List of NCAA college football rivalry games, which is a navigation list for all rivalries?—Bagumba (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a select list based on all-time rivalry meetings; sublists are permitted, but should not completely duplicate existing content. That having been said, if we were to "merge" these lists, it would make more sense to upgrade the parent list to the same content and formatting as the sublist.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the number of games played and series record would be nice to have for all rivalries. Filtering by number of games would be fine if this was the only list of rivalries;  however, since the other list exists, this subset seems arbitrary to have another article.  It's not like there is much more prose to add about this group to justify another list.—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep maybe it was created by a banned/blocked user. Don't care.  The list looks good and meets our standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that the CSD tag mentioned is not applicable anyway and even if it is, WP:IAR can brought into play here.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C) 23:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be foolish and disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would make the article be indicative of legitimate contributions rather than vandal contributions. Therefore it should be a higher quality article if done that way. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe it meets the notability standard.  I've made edits to this page over time and the information is always supported by the cited sources.  I would not be opposed to a merge as mentioned above, if someone was willing to do that work, but the information on this page is accurate and useful.  --Kgwo1972 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Paulmcdonald. There's no reason to delete something just because it's written by someone who's now blocked. I also agree with Paul's other comment that recreating for the sake of not retaining contributions by a blocked user is ludicrous. Go   Phightins  !  15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument is faulty - WP does as a matter of fact delete (by policy) contributions by blocked/banned users. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we can ignore the rules as sanctioned in the five pillars. Go   Phightins  !  23:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Phightins, IAR is not an all-purpose cure-all for every policy or guideline with which you disagree or whose proper execution renders a result that you don't like. Recently, I've seen IAR cited as a justification for ignoring the notability guidelines in AfD discussions; this is not the purpose for which IAR was intended.  IAR should be reserved for those occasions when policy or a guideline renders an illogical result or one that is clearly detrimental to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia.  When such an occasion arises, the proponent of IAR in a particular set of circumstances bears the burden of demonstrating how Wikipedia would be harmed by the failure to adhere to the policy or guideline.  That having been said, IAR is not needed here; the subject of this list is notable, and the G5 speedy deletion criterion does not apply, contrary to the AfD nomination, as explained above.


 * You and everyone else should feel free to ignore the G5 and "vandalism" arguments advanced by IP user 71.90.216.96. While I assume his support of the "delete" position is taken in good faith, he clearly does not understand the requirements of the G5 speedy deletion criterion or the Wikipedia meaning of "vandalism."  The closing administrator will.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that...I was saying that if there was policy that we had to delete everything from vandals, then it would be prudent to ignore that rule to keep what's clearly an article on a notable subject. Go   Phightins  !  23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Or we could just delete the vandalistic content and replace it with legitimate content. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you calling this article "vandalistic"? Go   Phightins  !  23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is vandalistic by WP standards, since it was created by User:Latish redone, the bulk of its content (including many updates) is (or was) contributed by User:Latish redone, and User:Latish redone was blocked for vandalism by his/her sockpuppet account User:Rhinoselated. Therefore it should be deleted. (It could be recreated if the topic of most played rivalries were deemed notable but I also assert that that is not the case.) 71.90.216.96 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't sell yourself short; creating this list was one of the few positive contributions you made to Wikipedia, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not User:Latish redone or User:Rhinoselated or any of his/her sockpuppets. If I am, why would I request the deletion of my own article? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing some regrettable things later doesn't invalidate your prior work... Go  Phightins  !  03:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rhinoselated was blocked for being a "vandalism-only account", according to the block log. Latish redone was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Rhinoselated.  This indicates that none of Rhinoselated's edits are valid, and that Latish redone's edits are tainted due to being linked to Rhinoselated. So this is not a case in which someone made legitimate edits and then turned into a vandal. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but are you calling this article vandalism (reminder: vandalism is considered any edit made in bad faith to harm the encyclopedia)? I hardly think so. Go   Phightins  !  04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and WP policies support my position by allowing the deletion of contributions from blocked and banned users. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS page is an important page for college football enthusiasts around the country and the only page offered, of its kind, on the Internet that I am aware of. I see it regularly referenced on college football talk message boards all over the websphere and, as a matter of fact, I see it being used as a reference point in a conversation on at least two different college football message boards today. The Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS is also an excellent portal page to Wiki, when linked on the various sites, for users that might find other sites of interest relating to the college football program which they support. In other words, it drives traffic to the entire wikipedia organization. I would ask that the page not be deleted, but rather improved. I was just reminded that the page has been used as a source of reference, just recently, during Rivalries Weekend on ESPN. I also volunteer to adopt the page and bring it current and up to standards. Scrooster (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the arguments already explained above. This is an excellently sourced and formatted list, and while the discussed merge sounds ok, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to delete altogether. --Zeng8r (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, I clearly recall the style of the the banned user who originally created the list in question. This bogus deletion nomination is just the sort of procedural trolling / pot-stirring shenanigans that he enjoyed. Just sayin'... --Zeng8r (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I resent my nomination being referred to as "bogus". What a clear violation of WP:AGF.
 * IP User 71.90.216.196, "bogus" was a poor choice of words. "Ill-conceived" would be both more accurate and more diplomatic.  Your reliance on G5 and your "vandalism" argument for the deletion of this article are based on your clear misunderstanding of both of those Wikipedia policies.  Please re-read them and learn.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer, I'm almost certain that the IP user you're arguing with is a sock of the same banned user who created this list in the first place, namely User:Latish redone / User:Rhinoselated. He always enjoyed yanking the chains of editors who take his trollish arguments seriously, just like he's doing now. This result of this nomination is clear, so I'd advise everyone to stop playing along. Zeng8r (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not User:Latish redone or User:Rhinoselated or any of his/her sockpuppets. If I am, why would I request the deletion of my own article? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Deleting this page would not be using G5 for its intended purpose. Ryan Vesey 04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what is the intended purpose of G5? afaik, it is meant to remove the contributions of blocked/banned users so that the encyclopedia is not tainted by invalid edits. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but this is not an invalid edit. This is a list that is sourced, notable, and clearly not made to harm the encyclopedia. At this point, I would move for a snow keep closure. Go   Phightins  !  04:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a snow close is in order here and might help to prevent further drama. To the IP: you have made your point. The consensus is clearly against you.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C) 04:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A snow keep closure is inappropriate here since - if you disregard my suggestion - there exists (an) editor(s) who has/have suggested that merging the article is appropriate. Therefore the discussion should be allowed to continue. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of G5 is to allow a series of articles created by a banned user to be deleted. This relieves editors of the burden of going through all of the articles to determine which should be kept and which should be deleted.  It is particularly useful if the user was banned for copyvio or creating hoaxes.  Once the community has determined that an article, as written, is worthy of being included, it should never be deleted. Ryan Vesey 04:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that just proves my point. How do we know that this article isn't a copyvio or hoax or otherwise illegitimate article? We can delete the article, and if editor(s) believe that there should be an article on most played rivalries then a new one can be created. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't systematically delete articles because they might be copyright violations. I can tell you that all of the rivalries exist, so it's not a hoax. This is growing rather ludicrous... Go  Phightins  !  04:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fellas, I'm telling you... Sockpuppet investigations/Latish redone Zeng8r (talk)
 * Well, we can. That's what G5 is for.  In this case, the article was brought to AFD where editors determined that it is not a hoax and not a copyvio.  G5 stops applying once oversight from another editor has occurred. Ryan Vesey 04:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase my comment...I understand that's what G5 is for, I should have said, "In this case we shouldn't" rather than "you can't". Clearly this is not subject to G5, so I see little purpose in continuing this discussion. Go   Phightins  !  04:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What are we even discussing G5 for? Latish redone wasn't even blocked when this article was created. Ryan Vesey 04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The nom rationale implied that since the user has since been blocked, we should somehow remove all of his/her prior contributions. Go   Phightins  !  04:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason Latish and Rhinoselated are blocked is because they are "vandalism-only" accounts. So what is the relevance of when they were blocked? A vandalism-only account does nothing but vandalize, right? And this article is one of those vandalistic contributions. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this article is not a vandalistic contribution. I know no other way of putting this to you. Did you even bother to read the article prior to nominating it? It is clearly not vandalism, it has over a dozen references, it has footnotes, it's readable, and it was made in good faith. By definition, it is not vandalism. Would you please read the policy?!? Go   Phightins  !  04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting that it is improper for Rhinoselated and/or Latish redone to have been blocked indefinitely? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, while Latish was not blocked, Rhinoselated was indeed blocked when Latish created the article. So this article is indeed a contribution from a blocked user while blocked. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon further research that appears not to be the case, but the point stands - what is the relevance of when a vandalism-only account was blocked? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The G5 criteria applies to "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." I think you'll find that this article has plenty of edits by others.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C) 13:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowball Keep per no delete votes and nomination not based in policy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My !vote counts. IPs are human too. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the nominator. It is a fair assumption that the nomination is a delete vote, but in this case it is the only one.  And since !votes aren't counted, but consensus is determined by the argument for the !vote (which in your case is entirely invalid), there are still no delete votes. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliably sourced article with few issues. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
Time to close this out, as the nominator has been blocked as a sock of Latish redone per Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone. I would say that I told y'all so, but that would be rude. :-)  --Zeng8r (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2012 (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.