The Showdown (rugby union): Fails WP:NRIVALRY as again no significant coverage of the matches.  In my opinion, not really suitable for an encyclopedic article as it's only really relevant to Saracens, and reads as WP:FANCRUFT .  I suggested a redirect to a specific section on Saracens F.C. but was reverted.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby union ,  and England .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nature of the article is wholly consistent with similar approved articles linked to Premiership Rugby , including The Big Game (rugby union) , London Double Header and Slater Cup - none of which the OP has raised an objection to regarding WP:GNG .  By the logic spelt out here, The Big Game (rugby union) should be considered WP:FANCRUFT , as it is only really relevant to Harlequin F.C. , and Slater Cup is only really relevant to Leicester Tigers and Gloucester Rugby , nor would that meet the threshold of WP:NRIVALRY , as it is not even a year old.  Indeed, the coverage of the matches detailed in this article is consistent with, and no less significant, than the matches detailed in these other three articles which, again, the OP has raised no objection to.  Therefore, the OP's consideration for what qualifies as notable or significant would seem to be fairly selective, arbitrary and inconsistent with the aforementioned approved articles.  If necessary, I would be happy to update this article with further citations to demonstrate the extent of the coverage although, to reiterate, this would be going above and beyond what has already been accepted for both The Big Game (rugby union) and Slater Cup .  Lastly, the OP's final statement is not quite accurate - as the article's revision history shows, their action was less a suggestion, and more a blanket removal of the article's entire contents without any discussion.  I would respectfully suggest refraining from making such unilateral decisions in future, in cases where there is no clearly no consensus for such an action.  House of Laughs ( talk ) 10:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: For all of the reasons outlined in the above reply, and with no objections having been lodged by anyone else, I propose keeping the article, closing this discussion and removing the WP:AfD in the next 24 hours.  To further highlight the OP's inconsistent approach to WP:GNG between this article and other approved Premiership Rugby related articles, I cite The Clash (rugby union) , which concerns an event that lasted just three years, relates to Bath Rugby only, and the article itself has, at most, 2 meaningful citations.  That article, along with The Big Game (rugby union) and Slater Cup , would all be nominated for deletion if we were to follow the OP's interpretation of WP:GNG , WP:NRIVALRY and WP:FANCRUFT in this AfD nomination.  Yet, all 3 articles have been widely accepted for years - including by the OP themselves, who previously contributed to The Clash (rugby union) without raising any of the same objections.  The OP's nomination of this article for deletion therefore does not seem to be based on WP:GNG , but rather on their personal views on specific clubs.  House of Laughs ( talk ) 10:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is far more GNG related coverage for The Big Game than there is for The Showdown, given its longevity over a period of time.  Also the Slater Cup features the same two sides each fixture, and there is coverage of the rivalry between the two sides.  Dependent on the outcome of this AfD I will then consider nominations/redirecting for The Clash as I'm not seeing much in relation to that one, but given we have this AfD in process, and the lack of engagement rugby union AfDs get at the moment, another very similar AfD at the same time isn't in the best interests of other editors at this time, given that the outcome of this AfD will likely effect that one.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Longevity was clearly not the defining factor for either The Big Game (rugby union) , Slater Cup or The Clash (rugby union) to qualify for WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY .  The article for The Big Game was created and reviewed in 2011, when the event was less than 2 years old, and the event has never consistently featured the same 2 teams.  Meanwhile, the Slater Cup, as both an event and a rivalry, has existed for all of 6 months.  As far as the coverage for each event goes, any cursory Google search would show that both the breadth and the amount of coverage of all of these showpiece event games each year is basically identical (a fact that is borne out in the citations within all of these articles, which frequently draw from the same sources).  Given that each of these articles concern very similar annual showpiece event games within the same sports league, to so arbitrarily interpret them as notable or not notable, as this WP:AfD has done, is utterly bizarre.  Finally, as a more general point, I think AfD nominations such as this one do nothing for the integrity of WP:GNG , and only serve to dissuade editors from contributing.  House of Laughs ( talk ) 18:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Updated - As an olive branch, and in the interest of resolving this matter quickly, I have consolidated all of the showpiece fixtures hosted by Saracens F.C. in Premiership Rugby into this article (although The Showdown branding began in 2020, the actual event dates back to 2009, and was branded as Derby Day for many years, with the majority of the fixtures against rivals Harlequin F.C. - all of which is now detailed and sourced within the updated article).  As this brings The Showdown article even more in line with The Big Game (rugby union) article, and should finally put to bed any issues you had regarding WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY , I would politely request that you review the latest version, and please consider withdrawing the WP:AfD .  House of Laughs ( talk ) 22:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  If others are to ! vote here, we might benefit from WP:THREE sources to focus on, especially ones that can address WP:SPORTSEVENT .  — siro χ o 22:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP: If this test would help to expedite the process, I am happy to oblige.  To highlight 3 sources that should satisfy the nominator's personal definition of WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY , I submit: [1] (Independent coverage on the profile of the two clubs as Premiership Rugby 's biggest rivalry) [2] (Independent source verifying this fixture's status as setting the world record for a rugby union club match attendance in 2015, which remains a Premiership record) [3] (Independent source verifying this fixture's status as setting highest viewership for a Premiership match in history in 2023, which remains a record) Also, in the interest of consistency, it is important to consider this article in the context of 4 similar, approved articles about other showpiece fixtures in Premiership Rugby – The Big Game (rugby union) , Slater Cup , London Double Header and The Clash (rugby union) – to which, I highlight the following: None of those 4 articles have required such an extensive test to prove their satisfaction of either WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY as this one; None of those 4 articles' current versions have anywhere near the level of citations and demonstration of coverage as this one; If we were to treat the nominator's definition of WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY in this AfD as gospel, and apply it consistently, all 4 of those articles would fail and would all be nominated for deletion – yet all 4 have been accepted for a long period of time.  Therefore, it is clear that the nominator has not treated this article on The Showdown – which, to any objective observer, is extremely similar to those other 4 articles – with a consistent approach to WP:GNG .  And, to put it in stark terms, if they were being consistent, either all of these articles are acceptable, or none of them are.  Given the precedent set by the acceptance of those 4 similar articles over the course of many years, it is only logical that this article is treated the same.  House of Laughs ( talk ) 17:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "Why Harlequins v Saracens is English rugby's bitterest rivalry" .  The Times .  10 June 2022 .  Retrieved 17 July 2023 .  ^ "Saracens put on a show in front of world record crowd at Wembley" .  Eurosport .  Retrieved 17 July 2023 .  ^ "Premiership Rugby smashes TV record with Farrell v Smith showdown" .  Rugby World .  29 March 2023 .  Retrieved 11 July 2023 .  I'll say weak keep based on the example sources provided and an examination of those in the article.  I cannot see the Eurosport source and am not familiar with coverage of rugby union, so I am not confident, but it seems likely there's enough independent coverage in the sources to put together an article without requiring original research.  The key for me is that the idea of a rivalry is verifiable and not OR.  — siro χ o 21:38, 28 July 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.

Discussion outcome: keep