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 no consensus. There seems to be little consensus here and some obvious strong links to historical rivalries. The historical nature of the rivavlry probably should be emphasized as someone else mentioned. JodyB _talk 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Auburn–Tulane football rivalry

Auburn–Tulane football rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college football rivalry that fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series. By that GNG standard, there is virtually no significant, in-depth coverage of Auburn-Tulane as a "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Has anyone ever written an in-depth feature article about the history and significance of the Auburn-Tulane series as a rivalry? Has anyone has ever written a book about the Auburn-Tulane series as a rivalry? Alabama-Auburn? LSU-Tulane? Auburn-Georgia? Yes, to all of those. Auburn-Tulane? Nope. And that's not surprising at all, given that this game has only been played once in the last 60 years, and has not been played in consecutive seasons since 1955. This series has/had no trophy and few of the other hallmarks of a traditional college rivalry, and none of the independent sources covering the historical game series discuss it in any depth as a "rivalry." CFB rivalries are about tradition, and this game series has little. This is not what was intended by WP:NRIVALRY, and this article is not supported by the precedents of previous AfDs and WP:CFB talk page discussions for a stand-alone CFB rivalry article. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Question. Clearly not a current rivalry, but they did play on an annual basis from 1921 to 1955. Can you confirm that you've searched newspaper and other sources to determine whether or not it was considered a significant rivalry back in those prior decades? Cbl62 ( talk) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• I wonder the same. Tulane has lots of football programs online to see how they considered Auburn then; e. g. The Greenie; Auburn vs. Tulane Cake ( talk) 20:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Cake, football programs produced by the home team are not independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG to establish notability. Nor are yearbooks, school newspapers, conference publications, or NCAA records books. We also typically discount hometown newspaper coverage, too. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Only claiming them as a starting point. On another note, it looks like this was an annual happening in New Orleans for years. I wonder on the coverage of the '32 game, for both 32 Tulane and 32 Auburn were fierce. Jimmy Hitchcock had 2 70+ yard TDs. Cake ( talk) 05:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Cbl62, I have pored through over 200 articles from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, and I have yet to find any significant coverage of this series as a notable rivalry. Passing uses of the word "rivalry," yes, but nothing that recounts the history of the series as a rivalry and its significance to the two programs as a rivalry. I am still looking, however, and everyone who participates is obviously welcome to do their own searches of Newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News Archive, etc., just as I am. You once asked me if the Florida Gators could justify having six or seven rivalry articles (two of which were historical). I now ask you the same: can the Auburn Tigers justify having 8 or 9 rivalry articles. My answer is "no," no program can justify 8 or 9 afrticles about genuine rivalries (at least any program that's not named Notre Dame). Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - In a very quick whirl of the internets, it seems that Tulane-LSU is a "historic rivalry." I'm not seeing any evidence of this for Auburn-Tulane, rather a relationship that suggests "long-term conference opponents." The three consecutive scoreless games in the 1930s might be historically significant and sourceable to the point of being a GNG pass. I'm not sure the "rivalry" is, however. Carrite ( talk) 20:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Undoubtedly Tulane-LSU is a historic rivalry. Aside from location, there was a time when one would always accuse the other of cheating (why LSU's 1908 title is tainted, and one sees an All-Southern player from that era of LSU only rarely). However, my knowledge of the late 30s until the 50s is pretty limited, and playing every year does have me wonder much like Cbl62. Plus, he covers All-America teams from that era at least. Cake ( talk) 20:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I'm leaning toward keep. I found an article from the 1930s which suggests that this was definitely a rivalry at one time, though it has clearly lapsed. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Mckensen, what we're looking for is significant coverage of the series as a rivalry. Passing mentions of the series as a "rivalry," such as the one you linked above, don't cut it. I can find passing references to virtually every multi-year CFB game series as "rivalry"; passing uses of the word "rivalry" in routine coverage are not magic incantations that save articles about non-notable games series from deletion. We're looking for in-depth discussion of the history and significance of the rivalry to the two concerned programs. Has the rivalry been covered in one or more stand-alone books? Has the history and significance of the rivalry been the subject of in-depth feature newspaper and magazine articles (i.e., those who primary subject is the rivalry)? Does the series receive annual coverage as one of the great CFB rivalries? If you can't answer "yes" to two or more of those questions, it's probably not a notable CFB rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Oh, understood. I can't give you that. Still, "annual renewal of football rivalry" suggested permanence, at least at the time. Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Mac, if finding passing references to an "annual renewal of football rivalry" were the standard, virtually every annual conference series in the SEC, Big Ten and Big XII, and most of those in the ACC, Pac-12 and Ivy League would be classified as notable rivalries. The funny thing about real rivalries is you know them when you see them. Most of them are self-evident. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• On top of rivalry meaning simply "annual contest" to some, some rivalries are inevitably lost to time in their significance as well. Say, were this 1950, or were Sewanee still a power, an Alabama-Sewanee article would be necessary. That said, the tone of the article, the persistence of the series, and that it's still ongoing somewhat has me leaning towards keep. It's certainly more significant than Auburn-LSU. It seems to be a before-Tulane-left-the-SEC rivalry. Cake ( talk) 23:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Cake, I've fought to keep articles about historic CFB rivalries in the past; this ain't one of them. As for "ongoing," this game has been played exactly once (2006) in the last 60 years since 1955. This was a former annual conference series for 34 years that ended when Tulane decided they could not compete in the football-crazy SEC. And nobody has produced anything that smells like significant coverage in independent sources. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I remain uncertain. Here is another mention: 1. Cake ( talk) 23:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Again, another passing use of the word "rivalry"; could just as easily substitute the words "annual game." Not even close to significant coverage as a rivalry in my estimation. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep while it may not be a modern-day rivalry, it sure seems to have been a major rivalry in the past. And notability can not be lost. Personally, I don't really like rivalry articles--but that's not a reason to delete it.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Paulmcdonald:, please provide links to sources that support the proposition that this was "major rivalry in the past." I've reviewed 34 years of game coverage for this series, and the coverage of the series as a rivalry is not significant. I've done my BEFORE homework, and I don't think the coverage is there. If you believe otherwise, please provide the links. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This seems like one of the most obvious deletes we've had. Aren't Alabama, Georgia, and LSU enough for Auburn rivalry articles? I could see maybe Auburn-Mississippi State, or Auburn-Georgia Tech for the historical angle, but schools like Tulane and Florida State aren't even in Auburn's top 10 rivals... Jhn31 ( talk) 02:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I think I would have no trouble arguing Tulane-Auburn is a more significant rivalry historically than Auburn-LSU. That is nothing more than conference alignment. Florida was a big rival of Auburn's for a long time, and only recently has this drifted away in significance. They used to play every year and it was definitely called a rivalry by everyone, much like the game with Miami (FL). As a Gator fan ugh for the many years an Auburn field goal derailed the season. If it were up to me right now I think Auburn's rivals, in order, would be Bama; UGA; UF; Tech; Tulane. I don't know much about the Clemson-Auburn rivalry. Cake ( talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per my earlier comment above the second source presented by Cake. The phrasing "will renew a rivalry dating back to a scoreless tie in 1902" can't be dismissed so easily. Certainly the article should be rewritten to reflect that this is a historical rivalry and is no longer active, but that's an editorial question. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Mackensen: Respectfully, Mac, if two passing references to "rivalry" in 34 years of newspaper articles make this series notable as a "rivalry," then every annual series -- current and historical -- in the Southeastern Conference is a notable "rivalry," too. The evidence for the subject's notability based on the two linked articles is as thin or thinner than that for a dozen other rivalry articles we've recently deleted. Please remember: WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Right now, we've got only TWO independent sources whose coverage of the subject as a rivalry is NOT significant. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Trying to pull together some of the coverage to help make a decision. Both teams were major Southern powers in the first half of the 20th century, and they played every year from 1921 to 1955. Not a current rivalry but maybe a significant historic rivalry. Coverage from the early 20th century is not easy to retrieve, but I find four AP wire stories (high level, not local, coverage) to support this being a notable historic rivalry: (1) this AP wire story from 1947 ("The Auburn-Tulane rivalry is one of the oldest and closest in the South."), (2) this 1939 AP story titled "Tulane Auburn Renew Rivalry" and calling it "one of the keenest rivalries in football", (3) this AP wire story from 1938 referring to the "annual renewal of the football rivalry between the Auburn Plainsmen and Tulane Green Wave", (4) this 1936 AP wire story titled "Tulane and Auburn Renew Gridiron Feud This Week". Also (5) this 1937 newspaper feature story referring to Tulane-Auburn as "one of the biggest October rivalries in Southern football" and a series that had become a "guaranteed thriller". Cbl62 ( talk) 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Do you want to know who Auburn's most significant football rivals are? Well, here are some unscientific, but certainly relevant statistics taken from Google web search results:

1. "Alabama-Auburn rivalry" - 540 results, includes all sorts of random references, as you would expect for one of the top 10 rivalries in college football [1];

2. "Auburn-Georgia rivalry" - 166 results, includes some references to other sports [2];

3. "Auburn-LSU rivalry" - 124 results, includes some reference to other sports [3];

4. "Auburn-Tennessee rivalry" - 80 results, includes some references to other sports [4];

5. "Auburn-Florida rivalry" - 66 results, includes some references to swimming and other sports [5];

6. "Auburn-Georgia Tech rivalry" - 47 results, includes some references to other sports [6];

7. "Auburn-Arkansas rivalry" - 31 results [7];

8. "Auburn-Clemson rivalry" - 24 results [8];

9. "Auburn-Ole Miss rivalry" - 17 results [9];

10. "Auburn-Mississippi State rivalry" - 14 results [10];

11. "Auburn-Florida State rivalry" - 9 results [11];

12. "Auburn-Tulane rivalry" - exactly 5 results, including three different results for the same 1947 AP wire article, this AfD discussion, and an Answers.com mirror article.

These Google web search results are by no means scientific, but they are completely consistent with a long-time SEC insider's gut instinct regarding the relative significance of Auburn's various football "rivals." In the grand scheme of things, Auburn-Tulane was not a significant rivalry, and no one has yet provided links to significant coverage of the series as a rivalry. Nada. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

As you say, those results are "by no means scientific." This is a rivalry that dates to the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s. A google search is a seriously flawed research vehicle for topics occurring several decades before the advent of the Internet. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Using that methodology, the "Michigan-Chicago rivalry" yields only 2 search results. [12] Yet, that is an indisputably notable historic rivalry. Again, google searches don't cut it when dealing with historic rivalries. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Apples and Oranges, Cbl. The Chicago-Michigan rivalry (and Chicago football generally) were on a downhill trajectory after 1924; Chicago's only post-war victory in the series was against one of the worst Wolverines teams in program history (1934). In the last 15 years of the Chicago program (1925-39), the Maroons had only one winning season. The Auburn-Tulane series was still being played annually until 1955, in an era of mass newspapers and statewide radio coverage of CFB games. If you want to compare the number of Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com search results regarding the Auburn-Tulane football series, and the subsets of those same Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com search results that use the word "rivalry," we can get a truer sense of how meaningful this "rivalry" really was. Then we can compare those results to those for Alabama-Auburn, Auburn-Georgia, Auburn-LSU, Auburn-Tennessee, Auburn-Florida and Auburn-Georgia Tech -- and we can further limit the search results to 1921 to 1955 for apples-to-apples comparison purposes. FYI, the Auburn-Georgia Tech rivalry was at its height during the same decades that Auburn-Tulane series was being played. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Both rivalries pre-date the Internet era by many decades. My point is that a simple Google search doesn't work for either. For this reason, your listing of google search results simply doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion. A search of newspapers.com for each of the above-referenced rivalries limited to the years 1921-1955 would, indeed, be more telling. Cbl62 ( talk) 23:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Per your suggestion, a search of newspaperarchive.com for the years 1921-1955 pulls 3 hits for "auburn-tulane rivlary", zero hits for "auburn-georgia tech rivalry", zero hits for "auburn-lsu rivalry," zero hits for "auburn-tennessee rivalry," zero hits for "auburn-florida rivalry," zero hits for "auburn-arkansas rivalry", 4 hits for "auburn-georgia rivalry", 24 hits for "auburn-alabama rivalry". Does this mean that Tulane was one of the top three Auburn rivalries during this period? It was a good thought, but, frankly, I'm not sure it really adds much to the discussion. Cbl62 ( talk) 23:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Sports rivalries, like professional wrestling rivalries, are usually just clever marketing spam. (And how many college teams are out there - squared? That's how many potential rivalry articles exist once the slippery slope is slid past.) Pax 00:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

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.