- 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. Clearly deemed notable and worthy of inclusion. I suppose this is an example of basing (the original PROD) delete rationales on the basis of it not being a rivalry when the article - and more to the point, the sources - do not necessarilly define it as one in the first place. (non-admin closure) â fortuna velut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 06:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- IllinoisâMichigan football series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) â ( View log ¡ Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books ¡ news ¡ scholar ¡ free images ¡ WP refs) ¡ FENS ¡ JSTOR ¡ TWL)
This was prodded with this rationale and then this addendum, but I'd like for it to receive stronger scrutiny through a deletion discussion. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the PROD attempt. There's no discussion of "rivalry" in article prose, just a bunch of text about their meetings against each other, which are WP:ROUTINE. "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." â Muboshgu ( talk) 19:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Unlike most Big Ten rivalries this isn't played every year, and "Michigan leads, 70â23â2" pretty much tells us this is a lopsided rivalry in favor of the Wolverines. Michigan/Ohio State this isn't. Nate ⢠( chatter) 19:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment previous discussions on the notability of series articles. ( discussion found further down, other discussion) WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The series has been played 95 times, dates back to 1898, and is historically significant and notable. Conference realignment has resulted in the series being played less frequently since 2011, but that doesn't alter the historical nature of the series. As discussed in the article, the series has had direct implications on the national championship on multiple occasions, including major upsets of teams ranked #1/#2 in 1939 ( Tom Harmon), 1955 ( Ron Kramer), and 1963 ( Dick Butkus). The 1925 and 1926 games built the reputation of Red Grange and are among the most significant in college football history. See here. The series has also featured matchups between ranked teams on multiple occasions, including 1942 (#13 vs. #12), 1944 (#8 vs. #10), 1953 (#4 vs. #17), 1983 (#8 vs. #9), 1989 (#3 vs. #8), and 1990 (#19 vs. #17). The current Wikipedia article is the result of many hours of effort. The timing of the AfD is unfortunate, as I am traveling out of the USA for the next three weeks and have infrequent access to the Internet. Oh well . . . hopefully, others appreciate the value to Wikipedia of well-sourced work on notable aspects of American football history. Cbl62 ( talk) 10:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep it's not strictly speaking a rivalry, but I don't see any convincing reason why we can't have articles about this lengthy series or others like it. It's a wellâconstructed, informative article, and I don't think we are doing our readers any favors by deleting it. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - There are sources dating back to the 1920s. Books, the New York Times, the old Chicago Daily Tribune, The Daily Telegram, Detroit Free Press, etc. I sometimes wonder if people just toss aside Wikipediaâs definition of Notable for the dictionary definition / personal opinion of ânotable.â This definitely passes the Notability test which is about significant coverage in independent sources. Itâs been covered extensively. -- Allison Jean Paully ( talk) 21:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep long-lasting series of games with tremendous amount of significant, third party reliable sources over the years.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I know there's no such guideline, but based on the number of times the teams have played I'm voting keep. This would be also interesting and useful for someone looking up the teams when they meet in the future. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:36, 23 November 2017 (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 keep. Clearly deemed notable and worthy of inclusion. I suppose this is an example of basing (the original PROD) delete rationales on the basis of it not being a rivalry when the article - and more to the point, the sources - do not necessarilly define it as one in the first place. (non-admin closure) â fortuna velut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 06:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- IllinoisâMichigan football series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) â ( View log ¡ Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books ¡ news ¡ scholar ¡ free images ¡ WP refs) ¡ FENS ¡ JSTOR ¡ TWL)
This was prodded with this rationale and then this addendum, but I'd like for it to receive stronger scrutiny through a deletion discussion. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the PROD attempt. There's no discussion of "rivalry" in article prose, just a bunch of text about their meetings against each other, which are WP:ROUTINE. "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." â Muboshgu ( talk) 19:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Unlike most Big Ten rivalries this isn't played every year, and "Michigan leads, 70â23â2" pretty much tells us this is a lopsided rivalry in favor of the Wolverines. Michigan/Ohio State this isn't. Nate ⢠( chatter) 19:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment previous discussions on the notability of series articles. ( discussion found further down, other discussion) WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 00:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The series has been played 95 times, dates back to 1898, and is historically significant and notable. Conference realignment has resulted in the series being played less frequently since 2011, but that doesn't alter the historical nature of the series. As discussed in the article, the series has had direct implications on the national championship on multiple occasions, including major upsets of teams ranked #1/#2 in 1939 ( Tom Harmon), 1955 ( Ron Kramer), and 1963 ( Dick Butkus). The 1925 and 1926 games built the reputation of Red Grange and are among the most significant in college football history. See here. The series has also featured matchups between ranked teams on multiple occasions, including 1942 (#13 vs. #12), 1944 (#8 vs. #10), 1953 (#4 vs. #17), 1983 (#8 vs. #9), 1989 (#3 vs. #8), and 1990 (#19 vs. #17). The current Wikipedia article is the result of many hours of effort. The timing of the AfD is unfortunate, as I am traveling out of the USA for the next three weeks and have infrequent access to the Internet. Oh well . . . hopefully, others appreciate the value to Wikipedia of well-sourced work on notable aspects of American football history. Cbl62 ( talk) 10:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep it's not strictly speaking a rivalry, but I don't see any convincing reason why we can't have articles about this lengthy series or others like it. It's a wellâconstructed, informative article, and I don't think we are doing our readers any favors by deleting it. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - There are sources dating back to the 1920s. Books, the New York Times, the old Chicago Daily Tribune, The Daily Telegram, Detroit Free Press, etc. I sometimes wonder if people just toss aside Wikipediaâs definition of Notable for the dictionary definition / personal opinion of ânotable.â This definitely passes the Notability test which is about significant coverage in independent sources. Itâs been covered extensively. -- Allison Jean Paully ( talk) 21:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep long-lasting series of games with tremendous amount of significant, third party reliable sources over the years.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - I know there's no such guideline, but based on the number of times the teams have played I'm voting keep. This would be also interesting and useful for someone looking up the teams when they meet in the future. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:36, 23 November 2017 (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.