- 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 Delete. czar ⨹ 05:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Battle for the Bone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another rivalry which doesn't meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG. With conference realignment, its very unlikely these two teams will meet in the future. Delete Secret account 03:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep it may not be much, but the teams have met 11 times – more than several of the other rivalries currently at AfD – and the rivalry does have a name. Also, the teams dislike each other enough that there was a brawl in one meeting. I'm not persuaded that deletion is the answer in this case. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 18:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)upon further consideration, delete Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can you give evidence that it meets WP:GNG, "meeting 11 times" is not a policy based reasoning. Secret account 20:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ Mellowed Fillmore:@ Secret: Roger that. For the last two days, I've been working through a Google News Archive and Newspapers.com search for significant coverage of this game series as a rivalry, not just an annual series in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. I'm not close to being done, but I have yet to find anything that would tip the balance in favor of keeping this article. What significant coverage have you found so far, MW? If you have found significant coverage, please post links. We're looking for coverage that discusses the history and significance of the "rivalry" -- some discussion of why the series is a "rivalry" in the coverage is helpful. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- The number of meeting isn't as significant as the fact that the game actually has a name. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 03:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- From the standpoint of evaluating the game's notability pursuant to NRIVALRY and GNG, whether the game has a name is irrelevant. ESPN and fan bloggers make up silly "names" all the time. In order to be notable for inclusion, the topic must either have significant coverage under the general notability guidelines, or satisfy one of the specific notability guidelines (which presume the existence of significant coverage). That's the point of most AfD discussions, including this one. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I have spent several days looking through various on-line keyword searches (e.g., "Fresno State" & "Louisiana Tech" & rivalry) trying to find significant coverage of this "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources to determine if it's notable per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Yes, there is coverage of the "rivalry," but virtually all of it is generated by sources we would not consider reliable (e.g., fansites, blogs, etc.) or independent (e.g., college newspapers, athletic departments, etc.). A surprisingly large number of these lesser sources seem to be based on the Wikipedia articles, and several even expressly mention Wikipedia as a source for the existence of the "rivalry." This is a good example of what is wrong with many Wikipedia sports rivalry articles: the coverage, if any, in mainstream reliable news and sports publications consists of trivial mentions, and anything approaching significant coverage is only found in non-reliable and/or non-independent sources that may not be used to establish notability. And this is apparently another example of an artificial "rivalry" that athletic departments and local media attempted to create in order to drum up ticket sales, and the "artificial" characteristics are all there: relatively short-lived game series, no single-subject books about the "rivalry," no national coverage of the game as a "rivalry," no feature articles even in local newspapers regarding the history and significance of the "rivalry." When Wikipedia becomes one of the primary sources for the existence of a sports "rivalry," it's probably not notable as a traditional college rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I created this article. At the time, it was the only active rivalry game that Louisiana Tech played. The game was billed as the Battle for the Bone by the athletic departments. It was a short-lived but heated series in football that also spilled over into other sports, most notably women's basketball in which there was also a brawl between the teams. I think you are going to find a hard time finding any single-subject book about Louisiana Tech or any aspect of the university other than media guides and yearbooks, but that obviously doesn't make the university or its athletic programs not notable. As far as whether to keep or delete this article, I will leave that up to y'all. I would prefer to keep it because I think this rivalry was central to the WAC era of Louisiana Tech football, but you certainly aren't going to find any single-subject books or much outside of the athletic department releases or school newspaper articles about this rivalry. - AllisonFoley ( talk) 00:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Allison, as you know, the Wikipedia concept of "notability" is all about significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Here, that coverage is lacking. Your description of the short-lived rivalry is mirrored in the rivalries section of the Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football team article. While the rivalry is obviously now defunct, and received little in-depth national attention while it was active, the team article does provide a nice summary of it. Gone, but not forgotten. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 12:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Dirtlawyer's research findings. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:55, 10 December 2014 (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.
- 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 Delete. czar ⨹ 05:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Battle for the Bone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another rivalry which doesn't meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG. With conference realignment, its very unlikely these two teams will meet in the future. Delete Secret account 03:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep it may not be much, but the teams have met 11 times – more than several of the other rivalries currently at AfD – and the rivalry does have a name. Also, the teams dislike each other enough that there was a brawl in one meeting. I'm not persuaded that deletion is the answer in this case. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 18:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)upon further consideration, delete Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can you give evidence that it meets WP:GNG, "meeting 11 times" is not a policy based reasoning. Secret account 20:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ Mellowed Fillmore:@ Secret: Roger that. For the last two days, I've been working through a Google News Archive and Newspapers.com search for significant coverage of this game series as a rivalry, not just an annual series in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. I'm not close to being done, but I have yet to find anything that would tip the balance in favor of keeping this article. What significant coverage have you found so far, MW? If you have found significant coverage, please post links. We're looking for coverage that discusses the history and significance of the "rivalry" -- some discussion of why the series is a "rivalry" in the coverage is helpful. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- The number of meeting isn't as significant as the fact that the game actually has a name. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 03:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- From the standpoint of evaluating the game's notability pursuant to NRIVALRY and GNG, whether the game has a name is irrelevant. ESPN and fan bloggers make up silly "names" all the time. In order to be notable for inclusion, the topic must either have significant coverage under the general notability guidelines, or satisfy one of the specific notability guidelines (which presume the existence of significant coverage). That's the point of most AfD discussions, including this one. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - I have spent several days looking through various on-line keyword searches (e.g., "Fresno State" & "Louisiana Tech" & rivalry) trying to find significant coverage of this "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources to determine if it's notable per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Yes, there is coverage of the "rivalry," but virtually all of it is generated by sources we would not consider reliable (e.g., fansites, blogs, etc.) or independent (e.g., college newspapers, athletic departments, etc.). A surprisingly large number of these lesser sources seem to be based on the Wikipedia articles, and several even expressly mention Wikipedia as a source for the existence of the "rivalry." This is a good example of what is wrong with many Wikipedia sports rivalry articles: the coverage, if any, in mainstream reliable news and sports publications consists of trivial mentions, and anything approaching significant coverage is only found in non-reliable and/or non-independent sources that may not be used to establish notability. And this is apparently another example of an artificial "rivalry" that athletic departments and local media attempted to create in order to drum up ticket sales, and the "artificial" characteristics are all there: relatively short-lived game series, no single-subject books about the "rivalry," no national coverage of the game as a "rivalry," no feature articles even in local newspapers regarding the history and significance of the "rivalry." When Wikipedia becomes one of the primary sources for the existence of a sports "rivalry," it's probably not notable as a traditional college rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I created this article. At the time, it was the only active rivalry game that Louisiana Tech played. The game was billed as the Battle for the Bone by the athletic departments. It was a short-lived but heated series in football that also spilled over into other sports, most notably women's basketball in which there was also a brawl between the teams. I think you are going to find a hard time finding any single-subject book about Louisiana Tech or any aspect of the university other than media guides and yearbooks, but that obviously doesn't make the university or its athletic programs not notable. As far as whether to keep or delete this article, I will leave that up to y'all. I would prefer to keep it because I think this rivalry was central to the WAC era of Louisiana Tech football, but you certainly aren't going to find any single-subject books or much outside of the athletic department releases or school newspaper articles about this rivalry. - AllisonFoley ( talk) 00:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Allison, as you know, the Wikipedia concept of "notability" is all about significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Here, that coverage is lacking. Your description of the short-lived rivalry is mirrored in the rivalries section of the Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football team article. While the rivalry is obviously now defunct, and received little in-depth national attention while it was active, the team article does provide a nice summary of it. Gone, but not forgotten. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 12:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Dirtlawyer's research findings. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:55, 10 December 2014 (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.