- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusion Bowl (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)
Non-notable college football "rivalry" game. Has only been played three times, with a fourth this coming week. O.N.R. (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've heard this referred to as the Confusion Bowl in years past. I follow college football fairly regularly and thought this was reasonably well known. Auggiewestbound (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:GNG. There is already significant coverage in the article dating dating back to the 1940s. Alvaldi (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. Coverage listed in the article is WP:ROUTINE game summaries or pregame reports, or simple commentary on how the two schools have similar names. This fails GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry or notable series between the two schools who will have played each other four times after this week. Two football teams with zero sourced animosity toward each other who have similar names does not mean their series of meetings is notable. Carson Wentz (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody cares about ur opinion 153.33.88.22 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is trying to avoid saying that this series is a "rivalry", but failing to establish why the series meets WP:GNG. 02:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿
- Keep The "Confusion Bowl" name for this series was coined in 1945 and has been used for each and every meeting between the teams. The Miami-Miami game generates multiple dedicated articles from reliable sources every time it is played. This is not WP:ROUTINE coverage of football games; the articles are written specifically with regards to how abnormal the same-name matchup is. A named "bowl game" with dozens of reliable source articles written about it over 78 years is notable and passes WP:GNG regardless of the scant few times they have played or lack of "true rivalry". PK-WIKI (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree 100%. 2600:4040:475D:6000:4826:FCEE:EEFD:B226 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments above SUBWAYguy 13:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG and comments above by User:Alvaldi and User:PK-WIKI. The article does not assert that the series is a "rivalry", and arguments against such a rivalry existing are thus a red herring. The bad feelings between the two Miami universities dates back to the founding of the Florida school in the 1920s (a century after the Ohio school), and I've added a bit of context on that. Cbl62 (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments above, there is enough documented history surrounding the series for it to be notable. I also do not understand the arguments that a page about a series between two teams has to be some kind of nasty rivalry in order for it to merit an article. Jlm87 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments above and per WP:GNG. The Confusion Bowl has been documented in previous verifiable citations, it has been discussed as such in each meaning. I am also confused about the need for it to be a rivalry to count - this is not a requirement per WP:GNG. If this standard is applied to this article it will result in several other sports-related articles and meetings between groups to be reviewed and proposed for deletion. DesertVulture (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable series with with many reliable source articles that go beyond routine summaries. They explain the history between the two schools (concerning football and other topics) as well as the origins of the "Confusion Bowl" moniker. Frank Anchor 18:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the Confusion Bowl has been known in media since 1945, I feel that should be enough to keep the page up. OrlandoApollosFan69 (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep consistent news coverage of the name across several decades meets GNG. Furthermore, arguments on the extent of the rivalry and/or how much animosity/number of games played against each other are both subjective and irrelevant (no WP guideline specifies a minimum number of games). Even if its sole notability comes from being a mildly humorous coincidence in name, there is sufficient sourcing—including from outside the home markets of the two communities in question, which disqualifies the use of WP:ROUTINE to pooh-pooh them—to justify its inclusion here. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All that matters is whether it passes GNG. Whether it can truly be called a "rivalry" is irrelevant. It has received significant coverage in numerous sources for a sustained period of time, and as such passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. This should probably be speedily kept. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:52, 4 September 2023 (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.