Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buccaneers–Dolphins 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__. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Buccaneers–Dolphins rivalry

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

This is an interesting one. Some coverage definitely exists calling this a rivalry due to the regional proximity, but barring source #5 is mostly passing coverage in the context in the preseason, which is when most of the games between these teams have been played, or in the case of source 3 is WP:CRYSTAL. Per WP:NOPAGE, all the pertinent content here can be easily covered on the respective team articles. Let&#39;srun (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football,  and Florida. Let&#39;srun (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above.  killer bee    09:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This clearly passes GNG. There is extensive coverage available. See just on newspapers.com: Florida Today 1991, Palm Beach Post 2003, Florida Today 2001, Tampa Tribune 1981, Tampa Tribune 1978, Sun Sentinel 1997, AP 1991, AP 1984, Miami News 1984, News-Press 1992, Poughkeepsie Journal 1976, Miami Herald 1984, among others; then online: Sun Sentinel 1986, Baltimore Sun 2000, etc. – in addition to what's already in the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly you didn't read my deletion rationale. I am aware of the coverage but don't believe it rises to the WP:NRIVALRY. The coverage is mainly either routine game previews or is WP:CRYSTAL in the case of the 1970s articles. Let&#39;srun (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * NRIVALRY states that GNG is the only thing that matters; additionally, as far as I'm aware CRYSTAL applies to Wikipedia articles (e.g. me writing an article about someone who I think will be notable in ten years, but isn't yet), not to the sources themselves (but even if it did, the amount of 1970s sources it would discount is two). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. What BeanieFan11 has posted is more than enough to satisfy notability. Conyo14 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources presented by Beaniefan. While much of it is passing mentions and routine coverage, there is enough significant coverage to establish notability per GNG.  Frank   Anchor  00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion and added sources for evidence of GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I get the feeling here that some people are forgetting WP:NOTINHERITED. The fact that the teams are notable doesn't make an alleged "rivalry" between them notable on its own, especially when most or all of the coverage is in-passing or is speculative. How many of the keep responses are actually based on "Regardless of the teams' notability, I have examined these sources and I am certain that several of them provide in-depth coverage of the rivalry as a thing unto itself" reasoning? I'm skeptical that it's any of them, but none of them cite specific sources as being in-depth. And its important to remember that just because a stand-along article could exist doesn't always mean that it should; it seems perfectly reasonable to me to summarize this material at the team articles, instead of devote an entire page to it with increasing amounts of fancruft over time. Anyway, I have not yet pored over all of these newspaper.com result in detail, so I'm in the neutral camp for now I suppose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Personally, I don't see why coverage of other rivalries are okay, but this one isn't. ---User:DanTD (talk)  04:03, 17 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.