Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonshine Throwdown

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshine Throwdown

[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)

WP:GNG requires If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." WP:NRIVALRY states "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." and defers to GNG. There is currently only one supporting citation. The article seems to be WP:TOOSOON, re games dating from 2014 to present. UW Dawgs (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, fails GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my review of the sources in the article and sources found online show a lack of coverage required to meet WP:GNG or any other notability measure. Only one of the three sources in the article actually even has the word "moonshine" in it, and that's the Forgotten5 reference--13:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete my search of online sources shows that a few bloggers and medium posters have called it the name of the rivalry, but it's basically a non-notable neologism. At best it's WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another non-notable sports rivalry. --Micky (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches didn't turn up significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's sourcing to "forgotten5" appears to be a blog and does not appear to be sufficient. The series also lacks key criteria of traditional rivalries. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another article about a very recently established CFB "rivalry" game (though there were a couple earlier meetings, the article itself states that "the rivalry was established in 2014"), so it's probably WP:TOOSOON in that regard. The only source to call this a rivalry is a non-RS blog site. If this article is kept for some reason, it should definitely be moved to a different title. Fails WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2020 (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.