Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bears-Vikings rivalry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }}: Deleted per consensus - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bears-Vikings rivalry
- – (View log)
The article does not use any references to support how this is a notable rivalry, outside of the fact it is a divisional rivalry. A Google search came up with almost nothing. See WP:Cite, WP:OR, and WP:A. ShadowJester07 ► Talk 06:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, as well as failure to meet Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 06:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I've actually seen books about some rivalries, such as Dallas Cowboys/Washington Redskins. There may be similar ones out there for this, but I could not locate any in Google. Xymmax (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - and I had better vote now, because after tonight's game my vote might be WP:COI. This article violates WP:N, and I suspect that almost any attempt to verify it may violate WP:OR. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I grew up in both Wisconsin and Illinois and this is as nothing compared to Bears-Packers rivalry. --Dhartung | Talk 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete since this fails everything that is WP:V. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite This is an important rivalry in the NFL and it features two major media markets in the United States, however, this, like many other sports articles, needs to be rewritten and cleaned up.ColdRedRain (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a link that notes the rivalry.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2007/12/les_frazier_prepares_to_face_t.html
ColdRedRain (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: There's no doubt there is a rivalry, as both teams are members of the same division. However, the rivalry itself possess no notability outside of that. Bears fans only care about their North rivalry between the Packers , relatively similar to how Detroit Redwings fans only care about their rivalry with the Colorado Avalanche. SI sis not even rank the Bears-Vikings Rivalries in their top ten NFL Rivalries list. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since we're using anectodal opinion to determine something that's well noted in the league (The players of both sides outright dislike each other) I can include my experience as an usher for the team. The mood between both teams fans are less than amicable, and this was just a *gimmie* game where the Bears had nothing to play for.
-
- But since Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or a mood barometer, the best thing to do in the determining of what makes a "rivalry" a "rivalry" is to talk to read press releases, the news media and the messageboards and blogs from the fans and the markets of the two teams themselves. Here, you can see on Vikings and Bears messageboards that the two teams dislike each other greatly, and here you can see on a Bears message board that the feelings are reciprocated to the point where the Vikings are the second most hated rival in their sphere and likewise for the Vikes.
-
- SI did not record a lot of fierce rivalries, like Falcons vs Buccaneers and Bengals vs Steelers, both of which are very fierce.
-
- And also, did you actually *watch* the game last night? If a punch thrown by a Bears offensive lineman to a Vikings defensive lineman isn't a sign of a fierce rivalry, then nothing is. Also, for the very simple fact that the game was on Monday Night Football itself and all night long, the game was touted as a major rivalry by the announcers themselves kind of drills a hole in your theory. Watch more teams in NFL than the Patriots, Cowboys and Colts and you'd figure what rivalries are what in the NFL.
ColdRedRain (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- And to add too, the two areas major sports teams have *ALWAYS* had a rivalry with each other when it came to sports. White Sox vs Twins and Blackhawks vs North Stars have always been big rivalries in their respective leagues. In fact, BECAUSE of the rivalry between the two areas, the NHL wants to realign the divisions because they can sense the money that would come from a Minnesota-Chicago rivalry. And actually, for a while, there was a debate in the sporting world if the Vikings and the Bears were each other's biggest rivals back when they were both playing for the same division crown 20 years ago and the Packers were putrid. You're either under 18 or you probably don't watch a lot of sports other than the "popular" teams. If you're under 18 and you watched your first Viking-Bear tilt, welcome to pure black and blue division hatred. ColdRedRain (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I believe this is opinion. I am a White Sox and Bears fan well over 18, and I say with equal fervor to your statement that while these rivalries may occasionally be compelling, they are not big in the grand scheme of their respective sports. As a Bears fan, the only true rivalry with the Bears is with the Packers. As far as the White Sox, the only team we are routinely comparing ourselves to are the Cubs. To be fair, Cleveland has been a bigger rival in the last ten years than Minnesota. To the point: this is all opinion. The article exists based on nothing more than a few sports writers looking for something to write about. Perhaps this rivalry is bigger in Minnesota than in Chicago, but that would just go to show that it is not a real rivalry in the sense that would achieve the level of notability to write an article about it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The rivalry isn't something that's new, it's been a strong rivalry for at least 30 years (Which is why I assume you're a new fan) I actually watched the tilts in the early 90's between these two teams, you probably didn't. Oh, and BTW, The players themselves consider it a rivalry. (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140226550.html) Not as strong as Bears-Packers but it's a rivalry none of the less. Enough that a Bears fan wrote an article about it on Wikipedia and named it "Bears-Vikings" not "Vikings-Bears".
- Comment - I believe this is opinion. I am a White Sox and Bears fan well over 18, and I say with equal fervor to your statement that while these rivalries may occasionally be compelling, they are not big in the grand scheme of their respective sports. As a Bears fan, the only true rivalry with the Bears is with the Packers. As far as the White Sox, the only team we are routinely comparing ourselves to are the Cubs. To be fair, Cleveland has been a bigger rival in the last ten years than Minnesota. To the point: this is all opinion. The article exists based on nothing more than a few sports writers looking for something to write about. Perhaps this rivalry is bigger in Minnesota than in Chicago, but that would just go to show that it is not a real rivalry in the sense that would achieve the level of notability to write an article about it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- And to add too, the two areas major sports teams have *ALWAYS* had a rivalry with each other when it came to sports. White Sox vs Twins and Blackhawks vs North Stars have always been big rivalries in their respective leagues. In fact, BECAUSE of the rivalry between the two areas, the NHL wants to realign the divisions because they can sense the money that would come from a Minnesota-Chicago rivalry. And actually, for a while, there was a debate in the sporting world if the Vikings and the Bears were each other's biggest rivals back when they were both playing for the same division crown 20 years ago and the Packers were putrid. You're either under 18 or you probably don't watch a lot of sports other than the "popular" teams. If you're under 18 and you watched your first Viking-Bear tilt, welcome to pure black and blue division hatred. ColdRedRain (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
-
ColdRedRain (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- With due respect, I think you are making my point for me. I have been watching this game since the 1970s. It is true that in more recent times the Vikings have gotten good again (compared to being good in the 70's and the late 80s/early 90s), and that there have been brief windows in that time when the Vikings and Bears were relatively equal in strength for brief moments. I will go one step further: there is a Bears and Vikings rivalry -- I don't think anyone is doubting that here. The problem is: I don't see how it meets notability. When I say "new", I meant that it is only about 40 years old ..... which do not compare to Bears-Packers, Bears-Lions, Bears-Cardinals, Bears-Giants, even Bears- Redskins, all of which go back much longer than the Vikings have existed. Even if the Bears & Vikings players today consider it a rivalry, that is not a guarantee that they will feel the same next year. When it comes to notability, it has to be documented from a dispassionate view. The Packers-Bears rivalry is among the oldest in the NFL. That can be documented without any opinion. The existence of a Vikings-Bears rivalry, being notable enough to warrant an article here, from what I read of WP:N is an opinion .... held by me, held by you, apparently held by some local sportswriters, but nothing beyond that. From where I am reading, it takes more than an opinion, even a widely held opinion, to warrant notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Delete. Nothing about this subject that can't be better covered in the individual articles on the two teams. The rivalry itself doesn't rate its own article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite. This is a noteable rivalry in the NFL and instead of ruining the page it should be fixed. Libertyville | Talk 14:22, 22 December 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.
