Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagles–Falcons 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 no consensus. If people want to discuss a redirect or merge, that doesn't require AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles–Falcons rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY as there is very little evidence of a rivalry between these two teams. A WP:BEFORE search of Eagles Falcons rivalry shows very few relevant hits; most are affiliated with one of the teams (such as the two “Falcoholic” blogs referenced in the article). I could only find one reliable secondary source (this AP article) but this is not close to enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment, this may actually be a notable rivalry, as my search brought up the following: Eagles-Falcons building fierce rivalry from The Daily Tribune; Falcons renew rivalry against Eagles tonight from The Atlanta Constitution; A bitter rivalry? Falcons, Eagles just warming up from Chicago Tribune; and Falcons outlast Eagles to continue rivalry from South Idaho Press. I'm currently neutral on this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This from Sports Illustrated also calls it a "rivalry". BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SI article does NOT call the Eagles and Falcons rivals (while only using the term “rivals” to describe the Eagles’ division rivals). I came across this source during my WP:BEFORE research and discounted it for that reason. It only says the Eagles and Falcons have a “history” with each other, which can be said of literally any pair of teams. Frank Anchor 22:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see the subtitle say, "Here are six things to know about Eagles openers and the rivalry with the Falcons". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize, I should have been more clear, I meant the body of the article. A lot of news articles artificially use terms like “rivalry” in their title to manufacture hype without backing it up in the body of the article, and I think that is the case here. To address some of your other concerns, the Daily Tribune article was pulled from the AP and is the same one I referenced. Atlanta Constitution is WP:LOCAL and the South Idaho Press article also uses rivalry in the title without mentioning much about a rivalry in the body of the article. All in all, not enough to satisfy GNG. Frank Anchor 23:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wondering. Are we too strict in our scrutiny of NFL rivalries? These sorts of articles are quite interesting and useful. Cbl62 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think if anything we are too lenient. A lot of these articles have popped up just because there are one or two blogs or articles that refer to a set of teams as “rivals.” Being “interesting” or “useful” are not justifications for inclusion here. Frank Anchor 13:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, but there is coverage of this as a rivalry, and we shouldn't reject the notion that "useful" and "interesting" are valuable features for an encyclopedia. Also, if the articles are well written and maintained on a current basis with good sourcing from reliable, independent sources, what harm does an article like this cause? Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, Don't forget about WP:HARMLESS. Just because an article isn't hurting anyone, it's not a valid reason for keeping. Spf121188 (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My comments simply reflect my uncertainty on this one and a feeling that we are sometimes overly aggressive in deleting valid rivalry articles. Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Cbl62, understood! Like I said below, this one is a tough call, and it's difficult not to come to the WP:HARMLESS conclusion. I'm guilty of that myself pretty often. Spf121188 (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, there are not enough reliable independent sources to pass GNG as explained in my nom and previous arguments. Frank Anchor 19:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There needs to be some more meat on the bones for sure, but enough references (including those mentioned here in the AFD) to save this article, IMO. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to National Football League rivalries. Don't think this satisfies WP:GNG for it's own article in mainspace, but there are enough games between the teams historically to redirect, plus redirects are cheap. Spf121188 (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't quite get off the fence, but "redirect" does not seem like a solution. If it's a real NFL rivalry, then a redirect has little to no value. If it's not a real rivalry, then delete would be more appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cbl62, Can I ask why you think a redirect would be of little value? I was only suggesting it because redirects are WP:CHEAP, and it's at the very least, a compromise. Spf121188 (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. My thinking is this: The NFL is the tippy-top of the American football world. If there is a true rivalry between two NFL franchises, it warrants a stand-alone article that recounts the history. National Football League rivalries is essentially a summary, and every entry on that list links to the corresponding stand-alone article on the rivalry. If it is not a true rivalry, then deletion seems to be the right result. Sometimes compromises are good, but I think not in this case. We need to make the hard decision. Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I can understand that POV. I didn't notice before that the page links every summary to the corresponding article. This one is tricky IMO. I just don't see quite enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but I'll let an admin determine that :) Spf121188 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am satisfied that the sources, including the ones mentioned in this AfD, that this satisfies the criteria for a notable rivalry. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that the discussion is leaning towards keep, but only very slightly. The other topic of discussion seems to be if this is redirected, where would it be redirected to appropriately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, snood1205 21:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm unsure about our criteria: is it required that the rivalry be covered as such by RSes, or that there's a history of meeting between both teams that have been regularly by RSes over the years? A cursory look at Category:National Football League rivalries and Category:International association football rivalries seems to indicate that it's probably the latter. So I'm inclined to keep this one. JBchrch talk 14:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "that there's a history of meeting between both teams that have been regularly by RSes" is the definition of WP:ROUTINE coverage, and this alone is not sufficient for a Wikipedia page. Frank Anchor 14:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sounds like something invented by the press as a promotional gimmick WP:PROMOTION - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY - Epinoia (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2021 (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.