Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high school football rivalries (less than 100 years old)

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, without prejudice to this being referred back to AfD later if the list drifts back to the unsourced trivial rubbish it was at the start of this AfD. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly unsourced list of non-notable high school football rivalries. Seriously there are thousands of them, even my old high school has a couple of rivalries. If some one wants to, List of high school football rivalries (100 years+) can be included as well. See WP:NOT, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:V, etc. Delete Jbeach ^sup 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete not something an encyclopedia can reasonably cover, and I strongly doubt this could ever be reliably sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator Chris! _ct 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Carthago If articles like that are not deleted and salted, then there's no point deleting any article at all.--victor falk 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have an article on this? I mean, really, we have an article on this? Raymond Arritt 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Who created this article? More to the point, why created this article? Kill it with fire. DS 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list is completely unmanageable. Fun fact: I actually played in one of the rivalries listed here. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with List of high school football rivalries (100 years+) to List of high school football rivalries. I don't doubt that there are many very notable high school rivalries, although I would like more sources on these articles. You know, at least one source per item/entry. However, lack of sources is not a reason for deletion, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, meaning that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia can reasonably cover a lot of things that a paper encyclopedia otherwise could not. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non noatable subject I also imagine this being a nightmare to source. Wondering why it's compain article is not nominated. Ridernyc 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep._{Arrgghh...edit conflicts...} Yeesh...why all the venom? While undoubtedly there should be a standard for inclusion in this list, as well as the 100+ years list, looking through it, there are several that, given reliable sources, would even be notable enough to support their own article. Others have no particular claim to notability and probably should be removed. Such a standard for inclusion would make the lists entirely manageable, as even at the present, neither of these lists are really very long. If the claims made about several of the rivalries on these lists are true, then many of them are among the oldest high school football rivalries in their respective states. In many regions, they are just as notable and important as some college football rivalries -- many of which have Wikipedia articles which are thoroughly sourced. My point here is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but rather that in the case of many of these rivalries, if they're as old or prominent in their respective areas as the list claims they are, then there must be significant coverage in (at least) local/state news sources, as the two cases are analogous. I mean, some of these rivalries draw tens of thousands of spectators -- way more than just your typical local rivalry. In short, both lists should probably be tagged for cleanup and as needing references (which I'll do as soon as I'm done here), and rivalries listed that don't seem to have any claims to notability outside of their respective school communities should be culled. LaMenta3 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added a proposal for standards for inclusion on the talk page of this article. Many lists that would otherwise have items added indiscriminately have these to keep them manageable and encyclopedic. I ask that all of the people !voting 'delete' or who otherwise have concerns about the manageability of this article (and the 100+ years article) review this proposal and contribute to the discussion. Hopefully, the establishment of such standards will help ease the concerns about manageability such that a list that has potential to contribute something fairly useful to Wikipedia can actually remain to do so. LaMenta3 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment: Those criteria for inclusion are well-thought-out and seem like a good basis for the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've listed this on Talk:High school football. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with LaMenta3's criteria or a derivative actively enforced. Then what we have is a list of notable rivalries, and that is an acceptable use of list articles. Note also that the criteria will require reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in some form. Rivalries can be very notable, and extensively written about. --W.marsh 03:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the criteria, but the article still needs to be sourced with heavy reliable sources, not just local newspapers. Jbeach ^sup 04:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, as they are the best positioned to provide accurate and extensive coverage of subjects that might generally have only regional notability. This is why I said they if it has been covered in a national or international source, it is probably notable regardless of anything else. However, if it hasn't, it might still be notable based upon other things such as attendance or relative age. LaMenta3 04:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any high-school rivalry gets mentioned in local town newspapers. Jbeach ^sup 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, which is why there are other standards for notability/inclusion than coverage in local press. If meeting one of those standards can be proven, even with a local news source, then it can be included and considered reliably sourced. You seem to keep forgetting that the reliable sourcing has to work in conjunction with the other criteria, not in lieu of. LaMenta3 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable subject that is amply addressed in reliable sources, though I would suggest a year range for inclusion, say 50-100 years. Alansohn 04:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't put an upper cap on an inclusion range. A lower bound for age might be a good idea, particularly for notable-but-defunct rivalries (say, they had to have lasted for at least 25 consecutive years and meet one of the other criteria during its time of existence), however for existing rivalries, I think that the criteria for inclusion will probably exclude most newer rivalries anyway. LaMenta3 04:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created this page when it became apparent that the original page, List of high school football rivalries was going to be tooooooo long. I agree that there probably needs to be some standards for inclusion, but deleteing the page would be a shame. A shame because this is a bit of American history that isn't chronicled in many other places, one of the reasons people come to wikipedia: you can find useful facts on just about anything. For instance, I was amazed to find an article about Silent Death Online. It was an online game that lasted about 5 years and died 5 years ago. These rivalries will last for dozens of years, will involve teams across the country. As far as notability is concerned, a high school football rivalry in Ohio will never be notable to folks in Mississippi, nor would one in Oregon be notable to folks in Maine. But should they be remembered only by those in their own locations? Clean it up, but let's not loose them, its not like we are running of of space. 67knight 05:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this article list exactly 2 references. I doubt it can every be fully sourced fro reliable sources.Ridernyc 14:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google search on "High School Football Rivalries" and came back with five, maybe six, reliable sources that look to verify several of the items on both lists...on the first page of search results alone. I'm working on parsing those half-dozen right now to add them to the lists. Just because there are only two references now doesn't mean that others don't exist, because they most certainly do. It just means no one has bothered to look for them or add them. LaMenta3 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do these sources meet WP:RS, or are they all local papers reporting on a local subject. Ridernyc 18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use proper grammar and punctuation, including interrogative marks where necessary, in order to better convey the meaning of your remarks during discussions. Thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do these sources meet WP:RS, or are they all local papers reporting on a local subject? --victor falk 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three current sources seem to be Jbeach ^sup 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have found and added so far have come from USA Today, Sporting News, The Oklahoman, Tulsa World, Versus and Rivals.com. Sources that I have found but have yet to incorporate include this article from Army.mil/news as well as a couple of supporting sources for ones I've already added, and there are plenty more where all these came from. Reliable enough for you? LaMenta3 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this imaginary requirement that User:Victor falk has created demanding that national coverage is required for a source come from? This article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see, local coverage for local events are normally considered as trivial. Jbeach ^sup 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see. A sports score of a local game is trivial coverage. Coverage of a game and its history is non-trivial, whether it comes from The New York Times or from the local paper. As stated in WP:N, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. There is absolutely no statement that the coverage must be national or that it can't be from the sports seection. Alansohn 20:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

none of this would stand as notable on it's own, I don't see why a list compiling 100 non-notable things would suddenly make it encyclopedic. These are just local events. Ridernyc 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually looked at the content of this list and the content of the references that are there, you would see that many of the rivalries have been significantly covered by both local and national media and that some even have Wikipedia articles of their own. Of the ones that don't have their own articles, some are certainly notable enough to support one(the Jenks-Union rivalry comes to mind as one that should really have an article but doesn't yet), while others are notable enough for inclusion in the context of high school rivalries. This is no different than including information about schools in a district in the article about the district -- they are notable in the context of the district, but may not be able to support articles of their own.LaMenta3 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: The article currently has 27 references, and rivalries whose notability could not be established by reliable sources through a cursory Google search have been moved to the talk page until such time it can be more definitively established whether sources exist or not. There are a few rivalries which I have found sources for that still need to be added to the list, and I am currently working on those in my sandbox. Once I'm through with those I'll move on to doing the same to the 100+ years list. LaMenta3 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do secondary school high school soccer football rivalries not exist in other countries? My initial reaction is that all articles in question need to be renamed, but I'm not sure if it would be necessary. Figured I'd throw that out there. Modla 09:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To actually bother with High School sport is not a thing we do in Norway, at least. (With the possible exception of sport- high schools, I haven't heard of secondary schools here with teams in any sport, and I cannot remember anything serious of the kind.) Seeing this games actually draw big crowds are very strange. But as this seems to be some sort of answer to, say, the Oxford- Cambridge boat race it seems like something that can defend it's place here (but I keep neutral on this. Or actually a non-voting neutral;-)) . Greswik 17:23, 3 November 2007 (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.