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.
One in a series of entirely-unsourced Ivy League football "rivalry" articles dating to March 2016.
WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to
WP:GNG. GNG states "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." Currently there are zero citations, so fails GNG. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage").
Non-GNG callouts:
Series dates to 1895 and is not particularly competitive.
@
Paulmcdonald: Could you please post your new GNG-sufficient citations? I'm happy to add them to the article on your behalf and switch to Keep, if sufficient. Right now the article's nominal topic is entirely unsourced.
UW Dawgs (
talk)
13:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
That is not a rivalry citation -presumably everyone is already in agreement that the series and game results have occurred (also true for almost any two teams from similar locations and/or leagues). The nytimes.com and newspapers.com courtesy links (above) also don't seem to return GNG coverage of a rivalry. So I presume we are in agreement that no GNG-sufficient citations have been identified to date. No intent here to badger you, only trying to reiterate that we have no supporting citations for the article's nominal topic.
UW Dawgs (
talk)
15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Unsourced, and a quick before search for the rivalry brought up just this Wikipedia article and a brief blurb from 1935 in which "rivalry" was used simply to colour the article. Not actually a rivalry.
SportingFlyertalk18:38, 17 September 2018 (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.
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.
One in a series of entirely-unsourced Ivy League football "rivalry" articles dating to March 2016.
WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to
WP:GNG. GNG states "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." Currently there are zero citations, so fails GNG. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage").
Non-GNG callouts:
Series dates to 1895 and is not particularly competitive.
@
Paulmcdonald: Could you please post your new GNG-sufficient citations? I'm happy to add them to the article on your behalf and switch to Keep, if sufficient. Right now the article's nominal topic is entirely unsourced.
UW Dawgs (
talk)
13:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
That is not a rivalry citation -presumably everyone is already in agreement that the series and game results have occurred (also true for almost any two teams from similar locations and/or leagues). The nytimes.com and newspapers.com courtesy links (above) also don't seem to return GNG coverage of a rivalry. So I presume we are in agreement that no GNG-sufficient citations have been identified to date. No intent here to badger you, only trying to reiterate that we have no supporting citations for the article's nominal topic.
UW Dawgs (
talk)
15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Unsourced, and a quick before search for the rivalry brought up just this Wikipedia article and a brief blurb from 1935 in which "rivalry" was used simply to colour the article. Not actually a rivalry.
SportingFlyertalk18:38, 17 September 2018 (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.