Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Brown Jug of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan

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. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Brown Jug of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan

No sources found, orphan since forever, outdated and nobody cares (as usual). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced article about something that doesn't assert any kind of notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But... but... little brown jug, how I love you! No notability assertion... baleet though it breaketh my heart --✶♏‭ݣ 07:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems that played since 1911 and is recorded as one of the oldest rivalries in Michigan football history is a reasonably clear assertion of notability. Agree that referencing is weak -- a general reference is identified as an external link, so it is inaccurate to say is is unreferenced, though there is obviously room for improvement. That it is an orphan is also problematic, but not anything that can't be fixed. Seems the jug is one of the first in a long tradition as detailed http://www.mhsaa.com/resources/library/trophy game.pdf here]. older ≠ wiser 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on my research, this is a 100-year rivalry that has received substantial news coverage. I will undertake to add citations over the next few hours. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the article with 14 separate sources reporting on the long-standing Upper Peninsula tradition. It is not the same article that those above voted to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cbl62's improvements pushed me over the fence on this one.
some newer than this one. Strikehold (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2009 (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.