Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn–Tulane football rivalry (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Auburn–Tulane football rivalry}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Auburn%E2%80%93Tulane_football_rivalry_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Auburn–Tulane football rivalry}})

Here is another example of an article this is more historically significant than an animosity-fueled rivalry in the very sense of the term. Auburn and Tulane have only played 37 times and haven't seen in the same conference since the 1960s, and there is an obvious lack of animosity between both fan bases and schools. In fact, a majority of fans on either side probably aren't aware of the history between these two schools. There's no indication in this article that this was anything more than an average conference game. This, in my view, justifies why a rivalry page isn't warranted for the series between these two teams. Tulane has long since slipped into mediocrity, while Auburn has established itself as one of college football's top programs. This is not a "rivalry" and, therefore, in my judgment, this page needs to be deleted. CalebHughes (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep This nomination is written entirely in the present tense. As noted in a similar AfD, Wikipedia doesn't exist to document things in the present moment, and the title doesn't imply currency. Historical significance is what we're here to document, after all. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete It's simply very difficult to find sources recognizing the rivalry. Cake (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Soft keep – per [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3385692/the_anniston_star/ this source], "The Auburn-Tulane rivalry is one of the oldest and closest in the south". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not temporary. That the game is no longer a current rivalry is irrelevant. This was one of the major rivalries in Southern football from the early 1920s to the mid-1950s. Articles addressing this as a rivalry are abundant and sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Here are a few: (1) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387800/tulaneauburn_rivalry/ 1936: Tulane-Auburn Rivalry Tops Week's Bill"]' (1a) [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19360927&id=O-McAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WGQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3778,5916424 1936: "Tulane and Auburn Renew Gridiron Feud This Week"]; (2) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387626/old_grid_rivalry_will_be_renewed_by/ 1937: "Old Grid Rivalry Will Be Renewed by Tulane, Auburn" - "One of the biggest October rivalries in Southern football"]; (3) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/1710511/auburn_tulane_rivalry/ 1938: "the annual renewal of football rivalry"]; (4) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387074/tulane_and_auburn_meet_at_new_orleans/ 1939: "one of the keenest rivalries in football"];(5) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387174/auburn_hands_wave_second_loss/ 1940: describing Auburn as Tulane's "ARCH RIVAL"]; (6) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387259/tulane_meets_plainsmen_in_no_saturday/ 1941: "Rivalry Since 1902"]; (7) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387320/simons_will_make_first_bow/ 1943: "this old rivalry"]; (8) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387392/auburn_tulane_renew_rivalry/ 1944: "Auburn-Tulane Renew Rivalry"]; (9) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387467/tulane_and_auburn_teams_clash_today/ 1945: "25th renewal of their rivalry"]; (10) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22387941/tulane_auburn_meeting_for_27th_time_on/ 1946: "one of the conference's oldest rivalries"]; (11) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3385692/the_anniston_star/ 1947: "The Auburn-Tulane rivalry is one of the oldest and closest in the south"]; and (12) [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22388634/tulaneauburn/ 1951: column analyzing the rivalry's history at some length and noting "few have produced as many close battles"]. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

:: GNG also supported by some of the marquee matchups between the programs. E.g., [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/22388457/tulane_upsets_auburn/ 1955: unranked Tulane upset #8 Auburn]. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Will withdraw my delete given Cbl62 making me look a fool. Dirtlawyer long ago felt he had looked into it and seen no rivalry. I was skeptical given the 1932 teams, but then when I later looked into it, I had a real difficult time finding something that said "rivalry" and meant more than "conference opponent". Cake (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

:: Nobody makes you look a fool, Cake. Your initial instinct was correct; it's just very difficult to find sources for rivalries that were limited to the pre-Internet era. This is one of the real problems with mass nomination of rivalries from the olden days. It take a good deal of time to dig through the source material -- a task that should be taken (per WP:BEFORE) by the nominator prior to submitting to AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Looks like the key sources have been found to support WP:GNG. However, I believe this and others like it currently in AFD are good faith nominations for deletion. It's part of the process, no worries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Cbl62 and WP:NTEMP. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep 3 AP cites now in lede. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not temporary. If it was noable then, it's notable now. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.