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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Cumberlands–Union 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)

Same editor. No independent RS to establish notability. UW Dawgs ( talk) 06:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 06:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 06:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 06:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete sources provided in the article are unimpressive for WP:GNG. Looks like some rich history, so if sources can be drummed up I'd switch my position.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Additional sources look better. Still room for expansion, but a good start.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment  The statement of the nomination that The Times-Tribune (Corbin), News Journal (Kentucky), and WYMT-TV are not independent is erroneous, as independence is a matter of journalist ethics.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Were added after nom. [1] UW Dawgs ( talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep  In the article, we have independent coverage from three media sources.  One is a daily newspaper in Corbin, one is a weekly newspaper in Corbin, and one is a TV station in Hazard.  The weekly newspaper article is authored by a staff writer, the daily newspaper uses an article written by Union College's Director of Sports Communications and is marked "© Copyright 2018 thetimestribune.com", and the TV station article suggests indirectly that the article "reflect[s] the views of this station".  These sources all strongly confirm the credible idea that two small colleges in Southeast Kentucky have a football rivalry, one that dates back to 1905, and that the Brass Lantern is the symbol of the rivalry.  Evidence includes the headline writer who wrote, "Patriots rally to win coveted Brass Lantern".  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment  The timestribune article reports a rare way to score in football, "However, the PAT was missed and [a] Cumberlands’ [player] picked up the loose ball, returning it 100 yards for a 2-point, defensive PAT..."  FYI, Unscintillating ( talk) 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I googled the trophy and the rivalry, and can't find anything besides school coverage, and single game coverage - certainly nothing beyond local coverage. There's no significant coverage on the rivalry, thus failing WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• What is your definition of GNG's local coverage?  Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 22:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC) reply

In general, if something is notable enough for inclusion, there's media coverage outside of the local area. Otherwise, the rivalry is of just local interest. It's not the best comparison, but look at how something like Army Navy gets strong national coverage every year. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete- It would take a lot to make a rivalry between NAIA schools notable, we're not talking about top-tier athletic programs. I just can't see this being any more notable than the local high school rivalry game.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question why would it take "more" for a smaller school rivalry than a larger school? Shouldn't it be "the same" ??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". The independent sources identified so far basically take about a recent game, with little background on the overall significance. Without more, editors will have little choice but to do WP:OR of sorts to cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games. "Local coverage" is not as issue for me; it's the limited number of independent sources. A rivalry from say California or Texas would likely generate more in-state, independent coverage than a series from Idaho.— Bagumba ( talk) 13:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Insufficient significant coverage has been presented to pass WP:GNG. This is a rivalry among two NAIA teams, i.e., teams that play at the lowest level of college football (below NCAA Divisions I (FBS and FCS), II, and III. Moreover, the coverage is minimal and hyper-local -- small town coverage in Hazard and Corbin -- and not even much of that. If the rivalry were significant, one would expect at a minimum to see coverage in the major Kentucky or Tennessee newspapers like The Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald-Leader, Knoxville News Sentinel, or The Tennessean. If additional significant coverage were to be found, I'd be willing to take another look. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:57, 17 January 2018 (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.