Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston College–Virginia Tech football rivalry


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Boston College–Virginia Tech football rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent, secondary sources. A BEFORE check only came up with []. Let&#39;srun (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Massachusetts,  and Virginia. Let&#39;srun (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't come close to meeting the high bar of NRIVALRY, and a blog post or two by bored sportswriters doesn't cut it either.   Ravenswing     16:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I found these: and . Neither I would consider to be significant coverage, but the SI article might be indicative of some more WP:SIGCOV articles out there. Conyo14 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the rivalry from the web:
 * Boston College and Virginia Tech renew old rivalry in big stakes game from the Boston Herald
 * Virginia Tech-Boston College: The Best Rivalry You Don't Know About from Bleacher Report
 * Virginia Tech Vs. Boston College: The Unheralded Rivalry from the same
 * Rivalry Blooming Between Hokies, Eagles from The Washington Post
 * Virginia Tech vs. Boston College used to be rivalry from Boston.com
 * There's a lot more than meets the eye in the Virginia Tech-Boston College series from The Athletic
 * BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably should provide hesitancy to the WP:LOCAL of Boston sources. The Washington Post is quite the WP:SIGCOV Conyo14 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP article is WP:SIGCOV. Not as convinced by the other sources (WP:LOCAL applies for the Boston based papers), although I can't access The Athletic article so that may also meet the WP:GNG. Let&#39;srun (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Able to access it now, and while it covers a few individual games in depth it appears that the 'series' never lasted long enough to qualify for NRIVALRY, as seen by the tone used. Let&#39;srun (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG. The only article above that might meet GNG is the WP article, and even that is a stretch because it is largely dependent on quotes from coaches of the teams, making the sources non-independent.  The rest arre WP:LOCAL and generally passing/routine mentions.  Frank   Anchor  14:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, the WaPo piece is about as clear a piece of SIGCOV as one could imagine -- it focuses on the series as a rivalry. The fact that the article includes quotes from players or coaches doesn't reduce its independence. To the contrary, such quotes are the earmark of good journalism, i.e., good journalists go to the relevant sources for their take on a topic. Holy smokes, if we're to the point of rejecting an in-depth WaPo piece as non-independent, we may as well just shut this place down. Second, there is nothing in our policy or guidelines that says that local media outlets don't count toward GNG (except in the limited and inapposite case of WP:NCORP). While hyper-local outlets IMO should be given lesser weight, we're not dealing with hyper-local outlets here. Cbl62 (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that local sources should only provide hesitancy due to the factor of bias playing into some level of independence. Conyo14 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Cbl62. Also, this additional source isn't really independent but says "If anyone is our rival in football, it’s definitely VT. We’ve played them at least once a year since 1993, with one exception of 2004." ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 13:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to pass WP:GNG, per the sources I found and arguments by Cbl62 and WikiOriginal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, the spirited defense and additional sources carry this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG as established by the sources found by BeanieFan11. Please note that WP:LOCAL is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and as Cbl62 notes, there is nothing in our policy or guidelines that discounts local media outlets. Alvaldi (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2023 (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.