Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiders–Seahawks rivalry (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Procedural close. With a well-attended AFD less than a month ago that had overwhelming consensus to keep, and with very similar deletion rationale, this nomination is out of order. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders–Seahawks rivalry (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)

If the Diamondbacks-Rockies rivalry is deleted for 8 credible sources cited, then why is this rivalry still a discussion? both teams are in entirely different conferences and the rivalry has little to no bearing on either side today, it likely played a role whilst Seattle was in the AFC PontiacAurora (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Besides several notable trades or signings on both sides with the likes of Gabe Jackson and Marshawn Lynch, what relevance does this rivalry have today? why not simply consolidate it into another page? there have been numerous articles deleted for similar lacking references such as Diamondbacks-Rockies, Astros-Mariners, etc... There are roughly the same amount here. I suggest consolidating it into the Seahawks' team page.PontiacAurora (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are only four cited pieces to this? how is this page still on wikipedia? 1. 2. 3. 4. There's no way this is still relevant PontiacAurora (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not have much interest in American football rivalries, but I would like to remind everyone that notability does not expire. The nominator says "it likely played a role whilst Seattle was in the AFC". If the rivalry was notable in the past, it remains notable today. The same point applies to other articles about rivalries: if the rivalry was ever notable, it remains notable today. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It meets WP:GNG, just needs more content is all. Notable events that have happened can be placed in. Also, two nominations in a single month? Shouldn't there be a time limit on these types of nominations? Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT 2c: "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". This same article was nominated by the same user 5 days ago, resulting in keep consensus from 8 keep votes and 0 delete votes. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, California, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - per above and also because this is the wrong venue. Essentially, if you disagree with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiders–Seahawks rivalry then you should request an overturning of the close at User talk:Aszx5000 and, if not satisfied, submit a request for review at WP:DRV. As this was closed as 'keep', we don't generally allow a creation of a second discussion as this defeats the purpose of the previous discussion and will just result in people opening new discussions every time they disagree with a result, which we can't allow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: It's pretty clear, based on the AfD that was closed 5 days ago, that this topic is considered notable. There exists quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV (as shown in the last AfD) even if it hasn't all been added to the article. This is not how a previous AfD outcome should be contested. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep the last nomination by the same user was closed five days ago as an unanimous keep. Alvaldi (talk) 19:48, 19 June 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.