Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiders–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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The article is poor, but there is a strong consensus that the topic is inherently notable (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Raiders–Seahawks rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Very little remains to anchor a whole page for this, chances are, you could likely make a sub article into the teams' pages PontiacAurora (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the topic passes WP:GNG with decades woth of significant coverage such as Looking back at the rivalry between Seahawks and Raiders (The Seattle Times, 2022), Seahawks' hate affair with Raiders lingers (Oakland Tribune, 2006), Raiders Busters ride again - Seahawks enjoy a long and cherished rivalry with Oakland enemies (The Vancouver Sun, 2006) and Raiders rivalry revisited (Kitsap Sun, 1998). Please note that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Alvaldi (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On top of that, Raiders, Seahawks Old AFC West Rivals With A Playoff History (CBS News, 2014) and Raiders-Seahawk Rivalry picks up a domension or two today (The Los Angeles Times, 1987) Alvaldi (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sources posted by Alvaldi. Teams were primarily rivals prior to the 2002 realignment, but notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.  Frank   Anchor  19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep sourcing already provided for GNG. Notability isn't temporarily and it simply being in a stub status after recently being created does not stop it from being notable enough for an article. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the sources are primarily about the rivalry, which is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough sources to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: There's quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV and the page needs to be expanded, but the rivalry was notable and passes WP:GNG. I'd be surprised to see any long term division rivalry fail GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. Certainly a notable rivalry. NP Hatfield (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2023 (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.