Robert Murić – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Robert Murić (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This article was not deleted following an AFD - but it should have been. Five people calling for deletion (including me, the nominator) and three calling for it to be kept. Of the three 'keepers', one said it should be kept because he will be notable in the future (violating WP:CRYSTAL) and the other two stated the article met GNG. However all five calling for deletion stated GNG was not met. To me that indicates a consensus...furthermore a further two editors (Joy and Why should I have a User Name?) commented without voting; Joy stated that "it seems to be a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:CBALL" while Why should noted that all the news pieces were "the same" - supporting the strong claim that coverage is WP:ROUTINE and that it is all because of a single event - a young player transferring to a big club. As a side note, the article when it was created was just a blatant copy of an identical article in my sandbox! Giant Snowman 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Notifying those who commented on the AFD - @Joy: @Mikemor92: @Mice never shop: @Sir Sputnik: @WR227: @KDS4444: @Nfitz: @Why should I have a User Name?:. Giant Snowman 19:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps the time of the World Cup wasn't the best time to tell people about footballers not being notable enough :) I raised my eyebrow a bit at Scotty's 'no consensus' decision. Had he decided to interpret that 6 : 3 as a weak consensus to delete, I doubt we'd be here again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I don't think there was a consensus on the key point: whether the GNG could be met. Keep voters pointed out some sources that give the subject a fair degree of coverage; I might have argued against that as well, but there weren't exactly many delete voters with overwhelmingly strong arguments to the contrary. Yes, much of the coverage arose in the context of transfer business, but it was also direct coverage that addressed the subject in detail. Ultimately the GNG point didn't really go anywhere either way. 6:3 as 'no consensus' is obviously going to annoy, but I don't think it's an unreasonable call on this one. In fact, I'm inclined to think it was the better call. Of course, the article should be replaced by moving the sandbox version over it for proper attribution to GiantSnowman.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment from closing admin - I probably should have offered a rationale in the AfD for this closure, to make it more clear why I closed it the way I did. As we all know, consensus is not determined by counting votes. Here is the rationale that I offered GiantSnowman when he approached me on my talk page: The AFD was close enough that the vote totals (i.e., 5 to 3) didn't much matter. I looked at each side's rationale. As you said, one side claimed that he doesn't meet GNG, the other side claimed that he does. So, at that point I need to look at the strength of each side's argument. The keep voters show that there are quite a lot of sources showing that Murić has been signed to a team in the top tier Dutch league, along with rumors that other top teams (like Manchester United and Chelsea) had been courting him. Google News shows 20+ articles on him in the last few weeks. Most of them are about the recent transfer to Ajax, and most (but not all) are Croatian sources. There was coverage of him before the transfer took place, and more coverage after it was confirmed he was going to Ajax. In any case, I felt that the sources that were provided at the AFD generated enough doubt that the non-notability argument was valid in this case. On the other hand, I don't think the sources provided were necessarily strong enough to close the discussion with a Keep result. Thus, no consensus. Since there are obviously a lot of sources available, this AfD really comes down to whether or not the coverage is routine. WP:ROUTINE gives examples such as wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, and crime logs; coverage of sports matches, film premieres, and press conferences. I'm not convinced that the coverage of a teenage athlete being signed by a top team (and being valued at €6million+ by those teams) is quite on the same level as obituaries and wedding announcements. ‑Scottywong \| gab _ 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure, allow renomination - Scottywong's rationale seems well-thought-out and appropriate under the circumstances. The only thing I take issue with is his interpretation of WP:ROUTINE. With regard to football (soccer) AFDs, coverage of signings (especially those relating to young players) has often been interpreted as "routine". Coverage is often based on PR from agents rather than actual interest in the subject and much of it constitutes one or two lines among dozens and dozens of such articles during the transfer windows. It's only when that coverage extends to actual profiles that we consider someone has taken a genuine editorial interest in the subject. Otherwise, the effort involved in reporting it is even less than that given to reporting match day sports scores. A €6 million signing is not "insignificant" but many youth players are signed years in advance of ever taking to the field and so consensus has evolved to draw the line somewhere. There probably isn't a strongly defined consensus in that regard anyway, so a "no consensus" result doesn't seem unfair to me. That said, there is generally no prejudice against the renomination of an article where a discussion has closed as "no consensus" and it doesn't seem the closing admin has indicated a specific objection in that regard. So that's where I'd go with it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] I feel that this type of coverage is more than just a routine announcement of "Player X was transferred to Team Y at a cost of Z dollars. Player X scored 25 goals for Team W last year." However, since the AfD came to no consensus, I'd have no objection to a renomination at some point in the near future, especially if it specifically focused on an evaluation of the available sources with respect to WP:ROUTINE. ‑Scottywong \| chatter _ 00:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Sure, but that's not really coverage of him - that's coverage of a legal dispute between the clubs that happens to relate to him. It doesn't tell us anything about him, really and I wouldn't consider it significant coverage of him. But anyway, I don't want to force you to defend your close by taking one side or the other - the whole point was that you worked with what you had, and in this case that was a not-particularly-clear consensus and your close reflected that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Not clear-cut, that one. Personally I would have preferred "delete" as a close, but "no consensus" was well within discretion. Since it was a "no consensus" an early renomination is permitted, and I'd suggest that.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - heads were about even, plausibly meets WP:N. No consensus is the right call. An in-depth analysis of the sources might be able to tilt the discussion, but that didn't occur (from either position). Wily D 09:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] That the article appears to have been plagiarized out of Giantsnowman's sandbox seems like a greater affront than its retention following the deletion nomination (though I will grant that a "No consensus" outcome looks like it was within justifiable parameters). Given that it appears that article is going to remain, and that its creation is the only edit ever performed on Wikipedia was by the article's "creator", Nordlund95, an SPA with no user page and nearly vacant talk page, and that such a page should have been created as a result of a page move by Nordlund95 from Giantsnowman's sandbox to the corresponding full article name space (which clearly was not done, and was not done for what look to me like shady reasons), credit for the article's creation aught to at least go where it is due, however that can be accomplished. KDS4444^Talk 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] We can, and should, merge the relevant part of the history of GS's sandbox into the history of this article. The SPA might as well be censured for failing to observe basic copyright policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Robert Murić's attribution should be repaired (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution) by dummy edit or history merge according to GiantSnowman's preference. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse no consensus was the right call, people on both sides didn't budge. They addressed each others concerns, but neither wanted to give. The original editors should be credited to avoid COPYVIO. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - the fundamental crux of this discussion is that we are dealing here with a player who has never played even a minute of first team football at any level, either the fully professional level demanded by or at any other level. Comments above regarding the transfer are correct, those sources deal with a legal dispute about the player between two clubs and do not threefore make the player himself notable. If the player ever plays, per WP:CRYSTAL then an article is warranted, but at the moment we are left in the strange situation where editors are claiming notability on the grounds that this individual is a footballer, without him actually having played at any notable level. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] That may be true, but that's more an argument that should have been made at AFD (or should be made at the next AFD). St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] You may wish to refresh your knowledge of the deletion discussion as that was exactly the argument put forward by myself, Sir Sputnik and Michael. Oh well, if he plays in the next couple of months then he will be notable, if he doesn't then he will almost certainly be back at AfD. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, my parenthesis were unclear perhaps. I've already suggested it be nominated again so I was making the point that the argument should be made again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Robert Murić – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was not deleted following an AFD - but it should have been. Five people calling for deletion (including me, the nominator) and three calling for it to be kept. Of the three 'keepers', one said it should be kept because he will be notable in the future (violating WP:CRYSTAL) and the other two stated the article met GNG. However all five calling for deletion stated GNG was not met. To me that indicates a consensus...furthermore a further two editors (Joy and Why should I have a User Name?) commented without voting; Joy stated that "it seems to be a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:CBALL" while Why should noted that all the news pieces were "the same" - supporting the strong claim that coverage is WP:ROUTINE and that it is all because of a single event - a young player transferring to a big club. As a side note, the article when it was created was just a blatant copy of an identical article in my sandbox! Giant Snowman 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying those who commented on the AFD - @Joy: @Mikemor92: @Mice never shop: @Sir Sputnik: @WR227: @KDS4444: @Nfitz: @Why should I have a User Name?:. Giant Snowman 19:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the time of the World Cup wasn't the best time to tell people about footballers not being notable enough :) I raised my eyebrow a bit at Scotty's 'no consensus' decision. Had he decided to interpret that 6 : 3 as a weak consensus to delete, I doubt we'd be here again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't think there was a consensus on the key point: whether the GNG could be met. Keep voters pointed out some sources that give the subject a fair degree of coverage; I might have argued against that as well, but there weren't exactly many delete voters with overwhelmingly strong arguments to the contrary. Yes, much of the coverage arose in the context of transfer business, but it was also direct coverage that addressed the subject in detail. Ultimately the GNG point didn't really go anywhere either way. 6:3 as 'no consensus' is obviously going to annoy, but I don't think it's an unreasonable call on this one. In fact, I'm inclined to think it was the better call. Of course, the article should be replaced by moving the sandbox version over it for proper attribution to GiantSnowman.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin - I probably should have offered a rationale in the AfD for this closure, to make it more clear why I closed it the way I did. As we all know, consensus is not determined by counting votes. Here is the rationale that I offered GiantSnowman when he approached me on my talk page:

The AFD was close enough that the vote totals (i.e., 5 to 3) didn't much matter. I looked at each side's rationale. As you said, one side claimed that he doesn't meet GNG, the other side claimed that he does. So, at that point I need to look at the strength of each side's argument. The keep voters show that there are quite a lot of sources showing that Murić has been signed to a team in the top tier Dutch league, along with rumors that other top teams (like Manchester United and Chelsea) had been courting him. Google News shows 20+ articles on him in the last few weeks. Most of them are about the recent transfer to Ajax, and most (but not all) are Croatian sources. There was coverage of him before the transfer took place, and more coverage after it was confirmed he was going to Ajax. In any case, I felt that the sources that were provided at the AFD generated enough doubt that the non-notability argument was valid in this case. On the other hand, I don't think the sources provided were necessarily strong enough to close the discussion with a Keep result. Thus, no consensus.

Since there are obviously a lot of sources available, this AfD really comes down to whether or not the coverage is routine. WP:ROUTINE gives examples such as wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, and crime logs; coverage of sports matches, film premieres, and press conferences. I'm not convinced that the coverage of a teenage athlete being signed by a top team (and being valued at €6million+ by those teams) is quite on the same level as obituaries and wedding announcements. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure, allow renomination - Scottywong's rationale seems well-thought-out and appropriate under the circumstances. The only thing I take issue with is his interpretation of WP:ROUTINE. With regard to football (soccer) AFDs, coverage of signings (especially those relating to young players) has often been interpreted as "routine". Coverage is often based on PR from agents rather than actual interest in the subject and much of it constitutes one or two lines among dozens and dozens of such articles during the transfer windows. It's only when that coverage extends to actual profiles that we consider someone has taken a genuine editorial interest in the subject. Otherwise, the effort involved in reporting it is even less than that given to reporting match day sports scores. A €6 million signing is not "insignificant" but many youth players are signed years in advance of ever taking to the field and so consensus has evolved to draw the line somewhere. There probably isn't a strongly defined consensus in that regard anyway, so a "no consensus" result doesn't seem unfair to me. That said, there is generally no prejudice against the renomination of an article where a discussion has closed as "no consensus" and it doesn't seem the closing admin has indicated a specific objection in that regard. So that's where I'd go with it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this type of coverage is more than just a routine announcement of "Player X was transferred to Team Y at a cost of Z dollars. Player X scored 25 goals for Team W last year." However, since the AfD came to no consensus, I'd have no objection to a renomination at some point in the near future, especially if it specifically focused on an evaluation of the available sources with respect to WP:ROUTINE. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 00:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's not really coverage of him - that's coverage of a legal dispute between the clubs that happens to relate to him. It doesn't tell us anything about him, really and I wouldn't consider it significant coverage of him. But anyway, I don't want to force you to defend your close by taking one side or the other - the whole point was that you worked with what you had, and in this case that was a not-particularly-clear consensus and your close reflected that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear-cut, that one. Personally I would have preferred "delete" as a close, but "no consensus" was well within discretion. Since it was a "no consensus" an early renomination is permitted, and I'd suggest that.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - heads were about even, plausibly meets WP:N. No consensus is the right call. An in-depth analysis of the sources might be able to tilt the discussion, but that didn't occur (from either position). Wily D 09:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the article appears to have been plagiarized out of Giantsnowman's sandbox seems like a greater affront than its retention following the deletion nomination (though I will grant that a "No consensus" outcome looks like it was within justifiable parameters). Given that it appears that article is going to remain, and that its creation is the only edit ever performed on Wikipedia was by the article's "creator", Nordlund95, an SPA with no user page and nearly vacant talk page, and that such a page should have been created as a result of a page move by Nordlund95 from Giantsnowman's sandbox to the corresponding full article name space (which clearly was not done, and was not done for what look to me like shady reasons), credit for the article's creation aught to at least go where it is due, however that can be accomplished. KDS4444^Talk 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can, and should, merge the relevant part of the history of GS's sandbox into the history of this article. The SPA might as well be censured for failing to observe basic copyright policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Murić's attribution should be repaired (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution) by dummy edit or history merge according to GiantSnowman's preference. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus was the right call, people on both sides didn't budge. They addressed each others concerns, but neither wanted to give. The original editors should be credited to avoid COPYVIO. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - the fundamental crux of this discussion is that we are dealing here with a player who has never played even a minute of first team football at any level, either the fully professional level demanded by or at any other level. Comments above regarding the transfer are correct, those sources deal with a legal dispute about the player between two clubs and do not threefore make the player himself notable. If the player ever plays, per WP:CRYSTAL then an article is warranted, but at the moment we are left in the strange situation where editors are claiming notability on the grounds that this individual is a footballer, without him actually having played at any notable level. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but that's more an argument that should have been made at AFD (or should be made at the next AFD). St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to refresh your knowledge of the deletion discussion as that was exactly the argument put forward by myself, Sir Sputnik and Michael. Oh well, if he plays in the next couple of months then he will be notable, if he doesn't then he will almost certainly be back at AfD. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my parenthesis were unclear perhaps. I've already suggested it be nominated again so I was making the point that the argument should be made again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Bell Game – Deletion endorsed but allow re-creation based on new sources. Article has been moved to Draft:The Bell Game. – IronGargoyle (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Bell Game (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This rivalry has continuous coverage in newspapers and books dating back to the late 1800's. I've shown coverage for this regional event dating back to the 70's, it's the largest event of it's kind in the state of Colorado and also the oldest rivalry in the State as well. While this may not be notable on a national level it is certainly notable for the state of colorado. I'd like to point out that regional businesses such as Mesa Mall and other historic places of interest have no limitations that they must be nationally notable. This game rivalry easily passes GNG by having significant coverages in The Pueblo Chieftain, The Rocky Mountain News, Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Post, these are all major Colorado newspapers It's also covered in books and rockyprep.com. This may not meet the gridiron project guidelines but it clearly has significant coverage, depth of coverage and sources that are separate from the subjects. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The community's consensus was correctly assessed by the closer. Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, this is not the venue to dispute a closure just because someone didn't like it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] The problems I see is that there is a very geocentric notability standard being applied here which I will say that the editors arguing against seem to be harboring, seriously how many single football games are you aware of that have coverage at local, regional and state level, the biggest event of it's kind in Colorado and also the oldest. We have this problems in other areas of wikipedia that we only consider things notable if they are notable where we live. I truly don't understand what I"m missing here, it has adequate and significant coverage which is not trivial and focuses on the rivalry itself and not the two teams. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as accurate evaluation of the AFD discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment by closing admin - This one seemed like an open and shut case to me. Three editors opine that the subject is not notable because the only coverage in reliable sources is WP:ROUTINE, and only of local interest. One editor argues at length that it is not routine coverage, but provides no convincing evidence of this assertion. While I appreciate the note on my talk page about this DRV, it is strongly encouraged that you have an actual discussion with the closing admin before bringing it here (see WP:DELREVD). ‑Scottywong \| babble _ 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] I didn't waste my time because I didn't think you had much you could have done about it. The coverage that I brought up was more then just routine trivial coverage, and I'd like to point out the references I provided during the discussion as well included feature focus articles on the game traditions itself rather then a particular game out of the tradition. The problems I see is that there is a very geocentric notability standard being applied here which I will say that the editors arguing against seem to be harboring, seriously how many single football games are you aware of that have coverage at local, regional and state level, the biggest event of it's kind in Colorado and also the oldest. We have this problems in other areas of wikipedia that we only consider things notable if they are notable where we live. I truly don't understand what I"m missing here, it has adequate and significant coverage which is not trivial and focuses on the rivalry itself and not the two teams. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Colorado Springs has nothing on Pueblo. ... and the Bell Game is noted as the oldest high school football rivalry west of the Mississippi River" [[1]] Colorado Springs Gazette "Oldest Rivalry in the west" [[2]] Picture from 1935 All time oldest rivalry of all Colorado high school sports 1892-2002 (this was time of publication and it a pdf. I couldn't link to that) -Colorado High School Activities Association I think I have provided enough to show that it's not just routine local coverage and if those things aren't enough to keep the article well it happens. I think it definitely passes because it is a HUGE community event that receives multiple coverages and the duration of the coverage is really the deciding factor. I'm not putting it at a high level of importance but it does pass the notability guidelines. I think the difference here is that it is the largest in event of it's kind in Colorado (really big factor that makes it notable for the area), has the age factor of being the oldest and longest rivalry here and overall the 8th of the nation Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, allow recreation - the close was an accurate reflection of consensus which continued to build despite HIAB's efforts to turn people around. That said, my own search brought up a couple of sources not discussed at AFD including another book which talks about the importance of the game to a "legendary" player, after whom they named the stadium in which the games are played. There's also evidence of national coverage of this local rivalry which I think puts it beyond most similar rivalries. Added to the extensive local and state-level coverage and I think this probably passes WP:GNG. I've been an advocate for the deletion of non-notable "rivalries" in the past but I think this one gets over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and Allow recreation consensus was reached in the AfD. A passionate user tried to sway people, it didn't work. There are references that indicate WP:SIGCOV so the article should be allowed to be recreated. There's nothing here that indicates that it shouldn't be recreated. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thank you I tink that both of your assessments are correct there was a consensus and it was interpeted by the admin correctly I just thought the article had significant coverage. BTW User:XiuBouLin what aprt of Hong Kong are you from? I used to live in Chai Wan! I miss the city and hope to be back soon. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] That's neato! Across from your part of the HKI, Shau Kei Wan. I love living on the island! The dim sum is still as plentiful as the day you left, so come back for a bite! XiuBouLin (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Restore article. Hell in a Bucket convincingly argues with multiple independent reliable sources that the Bell Game passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. In the AfD, he provided this article^WebCite from The Pueblo Chieftain titled "100 years of Cats, Dogs: Longest ongoing prep grid rivalry celebrates centennial". The detailed coverage of the Bell Game's history cannot be considered "routine" coverage. WP:ROUTINE states (my bolding): Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories). The article starts with: "The ball had not been in play more than a minute when Marvin made a touchdown for the South Siders (Central) amid tremendous cheers by the Mesa contingent. Cohn's try for goal was a failure. Neither team failed to produce any scoring threat after that and the game ended in Central's favor 4-0." So began the Central-Centennial High School football rivalry in 1892. That description appeared in The Pueblo Chieftain and the longest ongoing high school football series in Colorado was under way. Friday will mark the 100th anniversary of the event with the Bell Game, the traditional contest between Central and Centennial, the 92nd meeting. Central leads the Bell Game series 26-13-3 and the overall series 47-34-9. It continues: The traditional meeting between the two old rivals became known as the Bell Game in 1950 when Lewis Rhoades donated a bell to the victor of the Central-Centennial football game. The bell began its career on a C&W Railway train engine at the CF&I Steel Corp., but was transformed into a symbol of football superiority with Rhoades' donation. The initial "Victory Bell" game took place in the first of two meetings between Central and Centennial in 1950. Central claimed the Bell with a 40-27 victory and also beat the Bulldogs 25-15 later in the season. While the introduction of the Bell added another dimension to Pueblo football, it also ended a tradition where the two schools played twice a year, including a Thanksgiving Day matchup. That tradition started in 1892 when the original game took place Thanksgiving Day at Minnequa Ball Park near Lake Minnequa and many following contests were played on that holiday. Through the 1930s and 1940s, the teams would meet prior to Thanksgiving for an official league game, and in the event neither team was in the race for the league title, the teams would hook up again Thanksgiving Day. 15 paragraphs follow what I have quoted here. The lengthy discussion of the game's origin and history demonstrates that this is not "routine" coverage of "sports scores" or "sports matches". Instead, The Pueblo Chieftain's detailed coverage indicates it is a significant, storied sports rivalry between two high schools. There also two pages of coverage about the Bell Game in the book Football Feuds: The Greatest College Football Rivalries published by Globe Pequot Press (Google Books link). Playing Piano in a Brothel: A Sports Journalist's Odyssey published by Taylor Trade Publications calls "the 'Bell Game' between Pueblo Centennial and Pueblo Central, the oldest high school football rivalry west of the Mississippi". I believe the delete closure was within discretion, but I would have preferred a "no consensus" close since The Pueblo Chieftain article was not adequately discussed. Cunard (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Bell Game – Deletion endorsed but allow re-creation based on new sources. Article has been moved to Draft:The Bell Game. – IronGargoyle (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This rivalry has continuous coverage in newspapers and books dating back to the late 1800's. I've shown coverage for this regional event dating back to the 70's, it's the largest event of it's kind in the state of Colorado and also the oldest rivalry in the State as well. While this may not be notable on a national level it is certainly notable for the state of colorado. I'd like to point out that regional businesses such as Mesa Mall and other historic places of interest have no limitations that they must be nationally notable. This game rivalry easily passes GNG by having significant coverages in The Pueblo Chieftain, The Rocky Mountain News, Colorado Springs Gazette and Denver Post, these are all major Colorado newspapers It's also covered in books and rockyprep.com. This may not meet the gridiron project guidelines but it clearly has significant coverage, depth of coverage and sources that are separate from the subjects. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The community's consensus was correctly assessed by the closer. Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, this is not the venue to dispute a closure just because someone didn't like it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problems I see is that there is a very geocentric notability standard being applied here which I will say that the editors arguing against seem to be harboring, seriously how many single football games are you aware of that have coverage at local, regional and state level, the biggest event of it's kind in Colorado and also the oldest. We have this problems in other areas of wikipedia that we only consider things notable if they are notable where we live. I truly don't understand what I"m missing here, it has adequate and significant coverage which is not trivial and focuses on the rivalry itself and not the two teams. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as accurate evaluation of the AFD discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closing admin - This one seemed like an open and shut case to me. Three editors opine that the subject is not notable because the only coverage in reliable sources is WP:ROUTINE, and only of local interest. One editor argues at length that it is not routine coverage, but provides no convincing evidence of this assertion. While I appreciate the note on my talk page about this DRV, it is strongly encouraged that you have an actual discussion with the closing admin before bringing it here (see WP:DELREVD). ‑Scottywong | babble _ 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't waste my time because I didn't think you had much you could have done about it. The coverage that I brought up was more then just routine trivial coverage, and I'd like to point out the references I provided during the discussion as well included feature focus articles on the game traditions itself rather then a particular game out of the tradition. The problems I see is that there is a very geocentric notability standard being applied here which I will say that the editors arguing against seem to be harboring, seriously how many single football games are you aware of that have coverage at local, regional and state level, the biggest event of it's kind in Colorado and also the oldest. We have this problems in other areas of wikipedia that we only consider things notable if they are notable where we live. I truly don't understand what I"m missing here, it has adequate and significant coverage which is not trivial and focuses on the rivalry itself and not the two teams. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Colorado Springs has nothing on Pueblo. ... and the Bell Game is noted as the oldest high school football rivalry west of the Mississippi River" [[1]] Colorado Springs Gazette

"Oldest Rivalry in the west" [[2]] Picture from 1935
All time oldest rivalry of all Colorado high school sports 1892-2002 (this was time of publication and it a pdf. I couldn't link to that) -Colorado High School Activities Association
I think I have provided enough to show that it's not just routine local coverage and if those things aren't enough to keep the article well it happens. I think it definitely passes because it is a HUGE community event that receives multiple coverages and the duration of the coverage is really the deciding factor. I'm not putting it at a high level of importance but it does pass the notability guidelines. I think the difference here is that it is the largest in event of it's kind in Colorado (really big factor that makes it notable for the area), has the age factor of being the oldest and longest rivalry here and overall the 8th of the nation Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, allow recreation - the close was an accurate reflection of consensus which continued to build despite HIAB's efforts to turn people around. That said, my own search brought up a couple of sources not discussed at AFD including another book which talks about the importance of the game to a "legendary" player, after whom they named the stadium in which the games are played. There's also evidence of national coverage of this local rivalry which I think puts it beyond most similar rivalries. Added to the extensive local and state-level coverage and I think this probably passes WP:GNG. I've been an advocate for the deletion of non-notable "rivalries" in the past but I think this one gets over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and Allow recreation consensus was reached in the AfD. A passionate user tried to sway people, it didn't work. There are references that indicate WP:SIGCOV so the article should be allowed to be recreated. There's nothing here that indicates that it shouldn't be recreated. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I tink that both of your assessments are correct there was a consensus and it was interpeted by the admin correctly I just thought the article had significant coverage. BTW User:XiuBouLin what aprt of Hong Kong are you from? I used to live in Chai Wan! I miss the city and hope to be back soon. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's neato! Across from your part of the HKI, Shau Kei Wan. I love living on the island! The dim sum is still as plentiful as the day you left, so come back for a bite! XiuBouLin (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article. Hell in a Bucket convincingly argues with multiple independent reliable sources that the Bell Game passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
In the AfD, he provided this article^WebCite from The Pueblo Chieftain titled "100 years of Cats, Dogs: Longest ongoing prep grid rivalry celebrates centennial".
The detailed coverage of the Bell Game's history cannot be considered "routine" coverage. WP:ROUTINE states (my bolding):
Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories).
The article starts with:
"The ball had not been in play more than a minute when Marvin made a touchdown for the South Siders (Central) amid tremendous cheers by the Mesa contingent. Cohn's try for goal was a failure. Neither team failed to produce any scoring threat after that and the game ended in Central's favor 4-0."
So began the Central-Centennial High School football rivalry in 1892. That description appeared in The Pueblo Chieftain and the longest ongoing high school football series in Colorado was under way.
Friday will mark the 100th anniversary of the event with the Bell Game, the traditional contest between Central and Centennial, the 92nd meeting. Central leads the Bell Game series 26-13-3 and the overall series 47-34-9.
It continues:
The traditional meeting between the two old rivals became known as the Bell Game in 1950 when Lewis Rhoades donated a bell to the victor of the Central-Centennial football game. The bell began its career on a C&W Railway train engine at the CF&I Steel Corp., but was transformed into a symbol of football superiority with Rhoades' donation.
The initial "Victory Bell" game took place in the first of two meetings between Central and Centennial in 1950. Central claimed the Bell with a 40-27 victory and also beat the Bulldogs 25-15 later in the season.
While the introduction of the Bell added another dimension to Pueblo football, it also ended a tradition where the two schools played twice a year, including a Thanksgiving Day matchup.
That tradition started in 1892 when the original game took place Thanksgiving Day at Minnequa Ball Park near Lake Minnequa and many following contests were played on that holiday. Through the 1930s and 1940s, the teams would meet prior to Thanksgiving for an official league game, and in the event neither team was in the race for the league title, the teams would hook up again Thanksgiving Day.
15 paragraphs follow what I have quoted here. The lengthy discussion of the game's origin and history demonstrates that this is not "routine" coverage of "sports scores" or "sports matches". Instead, The Pueblo Chieftain's detailed coverage indicates it is a significant, storied sports rivalry between two high schools.
There also two pages of coverage about the Bell Game in the book Football Feuds: The Greatest College Football Rivalries published by Globe Pequot Press (Google Books link).
Playing Piano in a Brothel: A Sports Journalist's Odyssey published by Taylor Trade Publications calls "the 'Bell Game' between Pueblo Centennial and Pueblo Central, the oldest high school football rivalry west of the Mississippi".
I believe the delete closure was within discretion, but I would have preferred a "no consensus" close since The Pueblo Chieftain article was not adequately discussed.
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.