Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart 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. --Coredesat 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Mentioning a rivalry on a high school's page is fine. But having an entire page devoted to it is another thing. If we had a page on every high school rivalry in the US, we'd be overloaded with pages. Need to just have notable ones and I don't think this is notable. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question Why did this article go to AfD within 5 minutes of its creation and not even prodded? [1] --Oakshade 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Because the author objected and I felt like it should be given more input before deletion. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE this article is redundant to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy, which is the official name for this contest. --Kevin Murray 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This rivalry is notable to the entire San Francisco Bay Area which has millions of people in it and notable rivalries have millions of people knowing about it too. Why can't this article get it or other high school articles get it? And isn't the point of Wikipedia to create an informative online encyclopedia based on created topics that might not be easy to find online? Wikpedia English has over 1.5 million articles now. Their are probably only about 100,000 high school rivalries in the US. Would it make a difference at all to have 100,000 more articles. That's just a fraction compared to the whole Wikipedia English website. Every rivalry also has a deep history to people and is a tradtion and Wikipedia doesn't discourage users to not write about a local tradition. This article should be able to stay on Wikipedia and all articles that have the same rivalry topic should stay on Wikipedia. --Gndawydiak 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Your first sentence basically states the problem. It is known locally and that is all. It would be like having separate articles on every principal of every high school or every superintendent of every district. There has to be a limit somewhere. We already allow any high school to have a page. I just don't see the point in going beyond that and including non-notable rivalries such as this one. What's the problem with just including the information in the pages themselves?

--Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Delete - Actually I'd say "known locally only to people who follow local HS sports", because I'm local and I've never even heard of the schools, much less the rivalry. If we kept this sort of thing, it would grow exponentially - in my HS football division alone there were 11 teams and 5 long-standing rivalries. Anyone remember Bell-Trinity? Didn't think so. --Jamoche 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. This information is best handled in the pages for the individual schools. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - In the Bay Area there is millions of people and that makes it very notable and there's records of it on newspapers and websites [2]. Writing about every principal and superintendent for every school and district is different. Rivalries people care and listen about it and high school rivalries shouldn't be limited. It shows the rich history of their culture and city or town and shouldn't be discouraged from creating their own article on it and shouldn't just be limited a section on the school's article where it can't flourish like an article. Their are hundreds of thousands of alumni of these school's that would feel the same way as I do and probably the general public of the Bay Area and Northern California would feel the same way. --Gndawydiak 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's already a page for Bruce-Mahoney Trophy which has existed for over a year, although I suspect that isn't notable either. Static Universe
• Comment - Bruce-Mahoney Trophy just explains the trophy and the game and this article explains the whole rivalry which should be told if local or not. --Gndawydiak 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether the vote is to keep or delete this article, we definitely do not need 2 articles on essentially the same topic. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Madman 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a school rivalry between the Christian Brothers all-male high school and Jesuit all male high-school (there's no need for in the same city is nothing new, and certainly not notable for its own encyclopedia article, myself being party to the La Salle College High School-Saint Joseph's Preparatory rivalry, although the rivalry possibly could be mentioned in the article on the schools. The article certainly also does not need a the list of pranks done in furtherance of the rivalry, less anyone gets ideas.-- danntm ^T _C 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To begin with, an article of this nature is going to be a magnet for original research; this particular article has no citations. Secondly, rivalries of this nature, especially at the high school level, are simply not notable. The fact that the rivalry concerns schools in a big city makes no difference, it may be somewhat notable locally but notability needs to extend outside of the locale where the rivalry exists. Almost all high schools are going to have these 'rivalries' and many high schools are going to have multiple rivalries and most of the time these rivalries are going to be rather subjective as rivalries of this sort are, quite frankly, rather arbitrary constructs. I doubt, though am unsure, that there are articles on rivalries between major national teams or college teams, either, and for good reason. --The Way 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - actually being in a large metro area makes it less notable because HS football is not a major event, unlike someplace like Odessa, Texas - the Odessa-Permian rivalry has been subject of documentaries and movies, yet there's no article for it (and no, I'm not proposing it needs one). --Jamoche 06:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well this one is mentioned in newspapers and is well known even though its a high school sport. In the Bay Area, high school sports between different high schools are a big thing here. People go these games and come from very far away and is mentioned across the area. If somebody wanted to, they would make a documentary about this rivalry and mention it to the country. It doesn't make a difference on if they have a documentary or not. --Gndawydiak 06:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Redirect Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. I agree with Static Universe in everything except keeping this as an independent article. Yes, I see WP as being a source which stores info. not available elsewhere, but I don't see the title as being a likely search, and why not call it Sacred Heart - St. Ignatius rivalry. Only if the articles about the schools are overly long would I support a separate article -- there are precedents for this. Since there is already an article on this subject at Bruce-Mahoney Trophy this is a less complete redundancy --Kevin Murray 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I researched the deletion policy and this article is against the policy in all ways possible so this is an unneeded deletion and is taken to a level that was not needed. You could of just put a clean up tag on it or something like that at a lower level but this is un-needed. I take this deletion as really offensive and if this article is deleted, I'll bring it back no matter what anyone says and I'll fight for it. All users that want this article deleted don't understand any of this and are just following a corrupt user that takes everything at a big level when it's something small. And I don't care if this hurts my future nomination for administrator because I'd rather fight for these articles as a user. Hit me on a personal level hard, I'll hit you on a personal level harder. --Gndawydiak 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well known rivalry in major metropolitan area. There's too much subject-specific information here to be merged to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy article. Added one ref to article [3]--Oakshade 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because Aunt Mildred's masterful crochet doesn't get an article either. GassyGuy 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  The San Francisco Bay Area with a population of over 7 million is not a "local village" as the example WP:AADD refers to. --Oakshade 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• The area of the Bay Area that knows/cares about this rivalry is not the same as the population of the Bay Area. GassyGuy 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the big rivalry of San Francisco and I am glad that I have more users to go against your deletion. This shows we are large and a large ammount of people know about this. Everybody doesn't know about it because they're not from the Bay Area or Nothern California and actually have to research this like every other Wikipedian would do. --Gndawydiak 05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then I hope they know better than to try finding it an encyclopaedia, though I'm not sure how/why they'd research it if they don't know about it in the first place? GassyGuy 05:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well what about the 7 million or more people that know about and that want to research about this? Why don't you think about them then you? Why can't you understand that this is a notbale rivalry? How would you feel if you we're in my place? --Gndawydiak 05:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a ton of WP articles on subjects most people don't know anything about. Teaching people about these subjects is one of the most basic principles behind an encyclopedia. --Oakshade 05:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not my point. I was saying that "people might want to know about this" is true of almost everything, but does not make a topic encyclopaedic. My other point was simply that Gndawydiak seemed to be contradicting himself/herself. GassyGuy 06:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not contradicting myself. For the record I am a guy and this and all of what is stated is true for this article. The topic is perfectly encyclopaedic for Wikipedia and doesn't discourage any kind of article. --Gndawydiak 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I just looked over what you should look over before nominating an article for deletion. I says that some articles start out bad if they were just created. This article got a deletion notice five minutes after getting it created. This article needs to have a clean up instead of a deletion because as I stated before, the "attacking" user gave this article no chance and is letting it drown in the water with no mercy at all. This user took it to an un-needed level and any administrator who believes in me should remove the deletion and put a clean up tag instead. Here's the page itself that says this. Before Nominating an AfD --Gndawydiak 08:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• This has already been nominated and the nominating user is within rights, so it is a waste of your energy to contest the nomination (as opposed to the deletion). It is a waste of your energy to make unsupported claims of notability. What you need to be doing here is demonstrating why this article should stay. If you've said what you have to say about that, the best idea would be to simply allow this to run its course and see what the rest of the community has to say. GassyGuy 08:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well the rest of the community is turning a deaf ear to me and listen to a corrupt user that believes that this article is not notable. It is notable and it's being deleted for reasons that are stupid. I'll waste my energy if I want to to keeping this article alive and I won't let this article get deleted for reasons that are not true in which you believe in. I can look up a list of newspaper articles with this issue and give them to you and this article wasn't given a thought before being nominated for deletion. --Gndawydiak 08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well this has ceased to be at all productive, so I'll do what I should have done a while ago and ignore this debate now. However, while you're up for some newspaper reading, I hope you find time for some of this material, too: 1) WP:AGF 2) WP:CIVIL 3) WP:OWN. GassyGuy 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. And either someone straighten out Gndawydiak or ban him. Statements like "I'll recreate this article no matter what" and taking it to deletion review before the deletion is even over, and calling other users "corrupt" is simply not acceptable behavior. Stop hurling insults now. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Ok I'm going to shut up after this comment because I'm tired of dealing with these users. What I want to say before I stop is that this article shouldn't be on for deletion just after 5 minutes of its creation. Woohookitty went and over reacted and nominated it for deletion instead of following the Before nominating an AfD and reading that you should consider putting a clean-up tag instead. If he/she put that up, the article probably would of changed over a while making the article better than it is. Now this article is going to be deleted because of an over-reaction of an administrator that didn't look over the deletion policy. This article is notable to millions of people and can be supported by countless articles about this in newspapers. This article can't be merged with Bruce-Mahoney Trophy because these articles are different things but have some similarites but are different topics. I am sorry for my behavior for this debate but I over-react when somebody does something personal to me and I felt like I have to fight for this because this administrator didn't give this article a chance. Again, I am sorry for my behavior and you may accept this apology or not. If this article is reviewed by anyone else, look at the things that matter about the article and not my behavior or behavior of others. Look at this things that matter for this article. --Gndawydiak 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gndawydiak, the process can be frustrating. When I first began with WP, an article could begin as a seed and grow with time. However, the huge volume of junk that is submitted each day has forced WP into a defensive posture to battle the junk and spam. As volunteers we have to be efficient in nipping the junk in the bud ASAP. Now I develop my articles off-line and cut & paste something substantial enough to avoid the deletion process. This is respectful of the efforts by dilligent volunteers who are looking out for our mutual interest in having a credible WP. It is the spammers etc. at whom you should direct your anger. Good Luck. --Kevin Murray 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Bay Area resident and Stuart Hall Alum

• Delete, it's only notable inside the city of San Francisco, and only amongst the Catholic community there. Nobody else cares. Fails WP:LOCAL. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what the religion of the participants may be the rivalry is noticed by the general community. To say that "nobody else cares" is shallow thought. This is about an athletic rivalry with a long tradition. WP calls for notablility not broad ranged fame or importance --Kevin Murray 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• This rivalry is notable to the entire San Francisco Bay Area which has millions of people in it and notable rivalries have millions of people knowing about it too, as per above. I was attempting to show that the overinflated claims of the supporters are untrue. I grew up in the Bay Area. I repeat. Nobody cares. User:Zoe|(talk)

• Delete. Trivia; not encyclopedic or of notability outside of one part of the world. Agent 86 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense The Boston Marathon is a local event but is clearly notable. Just because it isn't famous doesn't mean that it isn't notable -- read the WP guidlelines. --Kevin Murray 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. Read what Agent 86 said. Notability outside of one part of the world. That isn't saying "local". It's saying that it's unknown outside of the Bay Area. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this belongs on the school blog or somewhere. Not an encyclopaedic subject. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic (see for example the "pranks" section). For a fairly encyclopedic tratment of the same basic topic, see Bruce-Mahoney Trophy. I don't think this is worth a redirect though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There isn't an article on the Cal-Stanford rivalry (even though there is an article on the Big Game and The Play), and a rivalry between two teams which can't beat De La Salle High School just isn't that important, even in the Bay Area. Argyriou (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not proven. I have advocated retention of other articles on rivalries, but here notability is not adequately demonstrated. Sorry. ( I don't advocate a re-direct either. ) WMMartin 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, subject matter inherently non-notable. Slac speak up! 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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.