Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Mexico–Utah football 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico–Utah football rivalry

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Rivalry is not establish via current citations which simply reflect game results. UW Dawgs (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; none of the references claim the rivalry is notable, or are anything other than news coverage of a single game. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches do not find multiple sources dealing with this 52-game football series as a true rivalry. Absent a true rivalry, a series between two programs warrants a stand-alone article in unusual circumstances where there have been multiple historic games, such as games impacting the national title, matches where both games were highly ranked, or games receiving ongoing coverage as being historically important. None of those criteria are satisfied in this case. If others come up with further significant coverage, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like the other editors, I could find no significant coverage in the search engines to show that this match-up is given much credence as an established rivalry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2017 (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.