Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panthers–Seahawks 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. Although this article may be another one that is built only on the propensity for the press to overuse the word "rivalry", there is clearly consensus to Keep it at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Panthers–Seahawks rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable and nondivisional NFL "rivalry"  ONR  (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe enough sources have cited this as a notable rivalry, and there's enough evidence in the article, along with sources, to prove it. -(user talk:newyorksports38)
 * Comment I don't think the fact that it is non-divisional really makes a huge difference. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. First I've heard of this "rivalry", and I'm a big Seahawks fan from way back. USA Today has described it as "becoming a 'must-see TV' rivalry", Rolling Stone (?) said it's the "NFL's Next Great Rivalry", and ESPN asked "Could Russell vs. Cam be the new Brady vs. Manning?", but it's not quite there yet. A memorable clash in this year's regular season (and maybe the playoffs) might seal the deal. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Needs much better sourcing about being a rivalry. I count 3 sentences within all of the citations which are weakly on point. 1) "The Carolina Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have such familiarity with each other that Panthers coach Ron Rivera says it’s almost as if they're division rivals." 2) "The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:" and 3) "Carolina and Seattle (11-6) have struck up quite a rivalry in recent years, with the Seahawks knocking the Panthers out of the playoffs last season." WP:NRIVALRY ("Sports rivalries are not inherently notable") refers us to WP:GNG and a requirement of significant coverage. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The article is not good, but there is a good amount of coverage about this as a rivalry:
 * The Charlotte Observer
 * Seattle Times
 * USA Today
 * Rolling Stone
 * ESPN
 * The Sports Daily
 * KGW.com
 * KGW.com (again)
 * Field Gulls
 * WCCB Charlotte
 * The Score
 * Associated Press
 * 24/7 Sports
 * Rant Sports
 * Cat Scratch Reader
 * The Sports Daily (again)
 * Fox Sports
 * Charlotte Observer

That's a ton of sources, and most of them actually relate to the rivalry itself - not just individual games. It's not one-sided coverage, either - local, state, and national media seem to agree there is either a rivalry or budding rivalry. Is it enough for a page? I think so. I may actually start work on it to improve it, because the current article just is not very good.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These are riddled with WP:RS, WP:NOTRELIABLE ("lack meaningful editorial oversight"), WP:TOOSOON, and WP:ROUTINE ("routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article") issues.
 * "The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries: " The Charlotte Observer
 * "the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years " only use of term in article Seattle Times
 * "it’s almost as if they're division rivals." USA Today
 * "the next generation of the NFL's best rivalry is just getting started. It's Cam vs. Russ." Rolling Stone
 * focus is QB rivalry "we may already be watching the NFL's next great quarterback rivalry." ESPN
 * "are developing one of the NFL’s budding rivalries." The Sports Daily
 * "The “Panthers is the Seahawks new rival” theory" KGW.com
 * Headline: "Seahawks-Panthers renew growing rivalry" rivalry term isn't used within the article KGW.com (again)
 * Opinion piece contrasting author's feelings; rivalry doesn't appear in Carolina section Field Gulls
 * " and the budding rivalry will add another entry in to an already exciting catalog." WCCB Charlotte
 * "the burgeoning Seattle Seahawks-Carolina Panthers rivalry may be in its infancy."The Score
 * Term not used in article body Associated Press
 * Points 11 and 9 of 12 re Sea rooting for Car in Super Bowl "You have a rivalry within conferences, but there's a undeniable pride in your side of the league besting the other." and "The rivalry will have much more juice if it's two of the last three Super Bowl winners" 24/7 Sports
 * "The Carolina Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have a budding rivalry"Rant Sports
 * "Carolina vs Seattle is the biggest out of division rivalry in the NFC . Maybe even the NFL" Cat Scratch Reader
 * "Week 13: Panthers@Seahawks In what has quietly become one of the best rivalries in the NFL this game deserve the prime time billing it has received." The Sports Daily (again)
 * "One thing that could derail the budding Russell Wilson-Cam Newton rivalry" Fox Sports
 * Term not used Charlotte Observer


 * WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and even taking an exceedingly generous view of those listed above, we are still failing a plain reading of the WP:GNG requirements ("Significant coverage," "sources need editorial integrity," etc). UW Dawgs (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sports rivalries aren't inherently notable. Ones regularly mentioned in media are, and this one has been, many times by reliable sources. I'd also like specifics on which ones you feel "aren't reliable".  Toa   Nidhiki05  19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:GNG standard is not "mentioned," it's significant coverage. You're welcome to pull quotes from your citations to establish this as a current (not future) rivalry between the teams (not QBs). UW Dawgs (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:GNG. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." It is trivial to perform a Google search and pull a single sentence from a newspaper, blog network, local TV station, or broadcast network and claim the results are sufficient for a "rivalry" article while completely ignoring GNG. That's why we don't have "rivalry" stand-alone articles every time teams have simply played each other and generated routine media coverage, ala:

"Seahawks-Broncos rivalry" -no stand-alone article
 * "Broncos-Seahawks rivalry recalled in hard-hitting AFC West days" CBS Sports
 * "The Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos had a pretty heated rivalry during the 1980s and 1990s." NFL.com
 * "Seahawks-Broncos rivalry goes back to old AFC West days" Seattle Times
 * "Some critics of bandwagon fans will assume that only Seahawks fans who joined the club in 2012 don’t know about the old Seahawks-Broncos rivalry." King5

"Seahawks-Raiders rivalry" -no stand-alone article
 * "Raiders, Seahawks Renew Rivalry" AP
 * "Seahawks, Raiders reveling in rivalry" Seattle Times
 * "One of the fiercest rivalries grew from those times in the 1980s when the Raiders and Seahawks crossed swords" Tacoma News Tribune
 * "Take a look back at the Raiders history with the Seattle Seahawks as the two former AFC West rivals get ready to renew their rivalry." Raiders.com
 * "As the Raiders and the Seahawks prepare to renew their old rivalry this weekend in Seattle" SF CBS

"Seahawks-Chiefs rivalry" -no stand-alone article This article remains weakly sourced on-point and the coverage being offered is clearly routine. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk)
 * "The Seattle Seahawk's rivalry with the Kansas City Chiefs is as classic a head-to-head matchup as you could hope for." Spokesman Review
 * "Maybe the Seahawks-Chiefs rivalry isn't as ugly as some of the other NFL feuds" Kitsap Sun
 * "The Chiefs have nearly doubled the 'Hawks in the win column (27-14) and have really dominated this rivalry as of late, prevailing in 14 of the last 16 meetings between the clubs dating back to 1991, this after Seattle swept this series in '90." ESPN
 * "The Seahawks qualify for the first part of the rival definition when it comes to playing the Kansas City Chiefs." Seahawks.com
 * Again, I can say these sources are fairly in-depth. I might go ahead and sandbox and see what I can do.  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That the other rivalries don't have articles means either they are not notable or they are notable but editors have not written articles about them yet. Based on the summary of the sources provided here, I'm inclined to believe "the other rivalries are notable but editors have not written articles about them yet". Cunard (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Draft instead in this case, because there's honestly still not a lot of confirmed substance; there is information, but as an article itself, there's simply not a lot of convincing yet. SwisterTwister   talk  06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't the purpose of a Wikipedia article to inform, not to try and persuade you of something? People would be going to the article for an overview of the rivalry, not to be persuaded into believing it is one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorksports38 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "The Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have met so often the past four seasons, it’s almost like they’re division rivals – if not for the 2,500 miles that separate them. Sunday’s divisional-round game at Bank of America Stadium will be the sixth time Carolina (15-1) and Seattle (11-6) have played since 2012, including the Panthers’ playoff loss at Seattle last January. The teams will meet again next season in Seattle for a seventh time in five seasons. The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:"  The article notes: "Carolina might not always be in the Seahawks’ minds, as James Taylor sang in the 1970s, but it does seem to often be in their way. For two franchises on opposite coasts and in separate divisions, the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years, crossing paths both with an unusual frequency and at particularly critical times, especially for Seattle. They will do so again Sunday when the Seahawks play at Carolina in a divisional playoff game, the Panthers once again standing between Seattle and the Super Bowl. In all, the teams have met eight times in the regular season and twice in the postseason — both of those in years in which the Seahawks advanced to the Super Bowl. Six of those meetings have come since Pete Carroll took over as the Seahawks’ coach in 2010, meaning they have faced Carolina more than any other non-NFC West team in that time. We could just list the games the Seahawks have played against Carolina. Instead, we thought we’d rate them in order of importance." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Panthers–Seahawks rivalry to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Most series between teams in major leagues have narratives that stretch beyond a single season, and once they pass gng (and thus satisfy nrivalry), I think an article is fine. I think this passes gng, both as a series and as a "rivalry". Smmurphy(Talk) 14:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was sceptical but I think Toa Nidhiki05's sources are adequate to pass GNG. I am not convinced by some of the counterarguments to his sources - if the headline states that the article is about a rivalry and the article describes the rivalry, it is not relevant how often the term "rivalry" is used in the article.  The source is providing siginficant coverage about a rivalry, regardless of the terminology used. Rlendog (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not appropriate to strike an unsigned "keep" comment made here until it is signed. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * would you mind signing your post? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for letting me know my signature was omitted. 00:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy per WP:NRIVALRY which says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." The sources offered above are mostly local to the two teams' cities, so I would consider this to be routine, "hey local team news!" type of coverage. Either WP:TOOSOON or WP:FANCRUFT or both. In either case, not adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2016 (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.