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.
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 which reference the "rivarly," much less significant coverage. Therefore the rivalry claim is not currently established to GNG standards ("significant coverage") via existing citations.
UW Dawgs (
talk)
18:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - as noted by nom, GNG applies. GNG would certainly be satisfied by the sources (note, best sources will be unaccessible to some via GDPR) indicated above. It's not one of the truly globally known rivalries, but it's certainly significant and notable.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
20:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep smaller school rivalry articles generally don't produce the coverage necessary for inclusion to pass
WP:GNG, but this clearly seems to be an exception based on new coverage discovered. Great job Cbl62!--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
12:53, 1 August 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.
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 which reference the "rivarly," much less significant coverage. Therefore the rivalry claim is not currently established to GNG standards ("significant coverage") via existing citations.
UW Dawgs (
talk)
18:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - as noted by nom, GNG applies. GNG would certainly be satisfied by the sources (note, best sources will be unaccessible to some via GDPR) indicated above. It's not one of the truly globally known rivalries, but it's certainly significant and notable.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
20:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep smaller school rivalry articles generally don't produce the coverage necessary for inclusion to pass
WP:GNG, but this clearly seems to be an exception based on new coverage discovered. Great job Cbl62!--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
12:53, 1 August 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.