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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle For Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:NEO and WP:N. An unsourced mess of original research and unattributed POV. There's no evidence that "Battle For Pennsylvania" is a notable name for this rivalry, nor is there any evidence that this is a rivalry of note. Mosmof (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As a lifelong Pennsylvanian and Phillies fan, I can say I've never heard of any such "battle". The lack of sourcing doesn't help either, and leads me to believe the article is whole lot of original research. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~50 seemingly relevant GHits. As many relevant hits for NHL - rather than NFL - rivalries. Of those remaining ones, very few come from credible sources. Generally limited to fantasy football/the blogosphere. The New Yorks Times, when talking about a game, does refer to it in passing (here):

The game is being framed by the local news media as a battle for Pennsylvania. We're always looking to cast these games as wars and battles. But I spent two days driving from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and didn't find any evidence of animosity. There were no Eagles hanging in effigy, no posters deriding Pittsburghers as morons.

...but only to deride the term. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, other similar articles have been brought up to a good standard (though their terms are more widespread). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 11 March 2009 (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.