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 per verifiability, notability, and original research concerns; those leaning toward "weak keep" agreed that the article needs a rewrite, and discussion cast unresolved doubt on whether serious reliable sources could be found. — TKD::Talk 07:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne-Wear rivalry

[edit]

This article is all over the place, trying to define a reputed "rivalry" that may not exist in any meaningful sense beyond the football pitch (which would be better dealt with in the articles for the respective football teams). It consists entirely of unsourced original research. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Tyne-Wear Derby. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As at least some of the information seems to have been taken from this article from the observer. I had no idea about the causes of this rivalry, but the football rivalry is common knowledge locally and in the football world.

A (reader) review of this book on Amazon called Alice in Sunderland says "Hinting at the traditional Sunderland-Newcastle rivalry, a theme discussed in the book, the credits reveal that the Newcastle-based Arts Council England (North East) refused a grant for the Sunderland based work."

Similar claims aren't just made but referenced on the History of the Tyne-Wear Derby, an article which is linked to this one via a merge template. There's no reason that someone with an interest in NE England's history couldn't make something decent from this. QuagmireDog 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though it needs a thorough rewrite. The rivalry certainly exists, though is not nearly as prominent as some others (e.g., Lancashire-Yorkshire, London-The North). Current article needs considerable work, though. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notablity is under question and it also appears to be orginal research.Harlowraman 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like original research but i'm not sure about it's notability. Oysterguitarist 06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more notable Yorks-Lancs doesn't have an article, AFAICS, and the London-North is only mentioned fleetingly in Watford Gap, and, IIRC, North-south divide in the United Kingdom Will ^(talk) 12:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. I'm not even sure how seriously the Observer story is meant to be taken; it's just a journalist adding a colourful backstory to a present-day football rivalry. The History of the Tyne-Wear Derby article, which seems nearly as superfluous as this one, adds a few citations, but none that really support the thesis of an ongoing non-sports rivalry between the two places (all cities have to compete with each other for industrial investment and political favours. Big deal.). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems alright, but needs a new re-write by an independent editor. Onnaghar(T/C) 14:35, 1 August 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.