Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iowa

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Iowa. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Iowa|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Iowa. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Iowa

edit

Iowa Xplosion

edit
Iowa Xplosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Women's Football Alliance as I am unable to find enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. All I really found was this mention in a story about a different team. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton–Drake football rivalry

edit
Dayton–Drake football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a classic example of an article failing WP:NRIVALRY. Almost none of the sources mention a rivalry, let alone give SIGCOV for it. Doesn't help that most of the sources are game articles and give nothing notable about this series. This shouldn't even be renamed to a series because of WP:NOTDB, so we shouldn't immediately try to be as inclusive as possible. This is basically another in-conference matchup that got a page for the sake of having a page, and nothing else. NotJamestack (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drake–Dayton football rivalry so it can't be deleted via Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WikiProject College Football has been notified about this AfD. NotJamestack (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The series lacks long history (regular play began in 1987), geographic proximity (507 miles apart with two states in between), and competitiveness (Dayton has won 29 of 38 games). That said, and somewhat surprisingly, the two articles linked by User:Ejgreen77 (especially this) are persuasive in showing that the two schools considered this to be their the preeminent rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but contextually the series from at least 1993–99 decided the winner of the (small five or six team) conference, with no playoff spot for the winner, so it kind of makes sense, but that's also why I'm suggesting we cover that in the history section, which at the moment is all realignment based. SportingFlyer T·C 16:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. As I mentioned, multiple objective indicia of "rivalry" are not present here. The coverage provided by Ejgreen is pretty strong, though temporally limited to the years 1997 and 1998. I'm on the fence and wouldn't be outraged by any result (keep, delete, redirect) here. If there was ongoing coverage of a rivalry into the 21st century, I might be persuaded to vote "keep". Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in terms of notability, this isn't a complete zero, and editorially we should absolutely mention their mid-90s games somewhere if it's deleted. I just don't think there's enough sources for a full article at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 21:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if those two sources actually talked about it as a rivalry, which they don’t, two sources would not be enough. NotJamestack (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a legit question as to whether the sources are enough but your repeated assertion that the sources do not even talk about it as a rivalry is inaccurate. To wit:
  • The first article (here) clearly and plainly describes it as a rivalry: (i) title refers to it as "their biggest rival"; (ii) the article even calls it "the premier rivalry in NCAA Division I-AA", (iii) Drake coach is quoted as calling it "the premier game every year, the premier rivalry". You can argue that this is not enough, but you can't say that the article doesn't discuss it as a rivalry.
  • The second also discusses it as a rivalry. Indeed, it quotes the Drake coach as saying: "You can't say enough about the quality of this rivalry and the quality of this series."
Friendly advice: You don't have to exaggerate to be persuasive. To the contrary, such exaggeration causes honest readers to question the validtity of everything you say. Cbl62 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something "the premier rivalry" isn't enough for SIGCOV.
The second source is... fine? Let's be honest, though. One alright source? Really.
All of the sources in the article itself don't give any SIGCOV for this "rivalry", so if the second source is the only one that would work, there wouldn't be much. NotJamestack (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be rude but did you actually read the sources above? Your comments don't make it clear that you did. It sounds like you're just assuming.
"These talk about Dayton-Drake as a series, not a rivalry. I don’t think that would warrant SIGCOV." SIGCOV doesn't have anything to do with whether it's a rivalry or not. Anything on Wikipedia can have SIGCOV. It's not a rivalry-only guideline. Also, you're incorrect, both of the sources discuss the rivalry in detail.
The sources don't have to say rivalry or rivals 50 times for them to be discussing a rivalry. "When they meet today in the nation's most significant non-scholarship game at 1:30 at Drake Stadium, it's more than two closely matched teams playing a football game. It's two nearly identical programs gauging their progress against the team they emulate." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the sources, and my opinion stands.
Once again, even if the sources were good, there are already a ton of bad sources on the page itself, so if those sources were removed, there wouldn't be enough sources.
Look, I'm not trying to WP:BLUDGEON or anything, but please make sure you take the sources already in the article into account. NotJamestack (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, there aren't a ton of bad sources. Sports Reference, ESPN, the NCAA, Newspapers.com, school websites, and CBS Sports are all reliable. The only questionable one is Youtube. Every source doesn't have to have significant coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just no. It's the CONTENT that matters most. Not how reliable the source is.
I'm done here. This is just getting dumber and dumber. NotJamestack (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you are wrong. Just because the source is reliable doesn't instantly mean it's not a bad source. Even the ESPN sources are game articles. NotJamestack (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

edit

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Iowa&oldid=1308001244"