Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiders–Seahawks rivalry (3rd 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 keep‎. I see a wall-to-wall consensus, possibly including the nom himself. Policy does not allow me to impose a moratorium on renomination, but it would be nice if we don't have to adjudicate this yet again in the foreseeable future. Owen× ☎ 14:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders–Seahawks rivalry

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another classic example of a rivalry that is either made up, or non notable. In this case I am saying the latter is more likely. No history section and only one notable event. Unless someone can improve the article and provide history etc, this should either be Redirected to List of NFL rivalries where content should be added or straight up Deleted. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, United States of America, California, Nevada, and Washington. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Last discussion was speedy keep. Not going to vote myself, but since I was unaware of the previous two nominations (I might have once knew about them but I think I might have forgotten, I might have RSV RN so it makes remembering harder) but is anyone else thinking speedy keep? Just normal keep or are there some people who now think redirect is a good idea? Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be a speedy keep if you formally withdraw your nomination. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't know this, but I am a bit shocked that this is the 3rd nomination for deletion. Maybe this nomination was a mistake… Maybe editors will have different views this time… Oh well, I am keeping it open. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources listed in the previous two AfD discussions. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another further comment from the Nom If this is kept, I think there should be a Moratorium on this discussion until at least January 1 2028. I will make this a vote know. Tagging Darth Stabro to see if Moratorium is supported by the current only user in discussion. Voting on this one like all is not compulsory. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an AfD is kept, the advice is to wait six months for a renom. SportingFlyer T·C 14:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer Is a Moratorium possible? Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, users are generally allowed to take articles to AfD if they so wish, though anything before six months after the last one is usually considered improper. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seattle appears to have cared much more about this than the Raiders, but there's decent enough coverage to support the fact it's a historical rivalry from when Seattle was in the AFC West. I don't see sources discussing it as a current rivalry. I've been using the standard that the rivalry has to be discussed outside of just the week before/after the two teams meet. This Athletic/New York Times clearly meets that standard. Furthermore, someone needs to adopt and improve this article. SportingFlyer T·C 14:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer Do you have any view on the proposed Moratorium? Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He already replied to your "Moratorium". Notability isn't temporary. If it's notable in 2025 (for the third time), it will always be unless guidelines change. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiOriginal-9 Oh, must have forgot. I do have RSV RN so it is making it tough. Thanks for the reminder. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Alvaldi in the first nomination are more than sufficient for this article to meet WP:GNG. While they are no longer divisional rivals, notability is not temporary, as per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I do agree that this article is in bad shape and poorly written, but per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, that is not a valid reason to delete the page. I do hope that someone expands and improves the article. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiGiancarloC2 Do you have any view on the proposed Moratorium? (It makes it easier to say stuff like support, oppose or abstain. Just letting you know.) Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles being poorly written is not a valid reason to AfD an article. NotJamestack (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that advice (Whether you intended to give it to me or not) NotJamestack. I feel like I am pretty bad at judging whether something meets or fails WP:GNG, most of my nominations are either a redirect or keep. But my own personal study that just quickly came into my head tells me to apply tags like needs additional citations for verification. What I just figured as I was typing a few seconds ago is to use the talk page. Great idea that popped into my head. Use the talk page to improve the article to discuss improvements and possibly even discuss notability instead of/before nominating for AFD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per GNG. Also, let’s not forget that these two teams were once in the same division and notability is not temporary. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 August 2025 (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.