397:, you are correct about the first source; it is discussing high-school football, and I was still confused by the high-school/college switch above. The second one, though, seems not to be personal to me; the third paragraph starts of "This is a rivalry game for the ," which seems clear enough. The third article is less direct, but the piece is focused on rivalries, and the first bullet point, second column, mentions this particular one.
419:
Florida is a very fertile college football recruiting area, and a handful of
Florida kids wind up playing for South Carolina every year. For those Florida natives playing for South Carolina, yeah, it's a personal rivalry because they're playing their home-state university. Not so much for the other 90% of the Gamecocks who are not from Florida.
433:
Bloody hell, yes, right again. I have changed my vote, as that leaves only one source. As for that one, though; yes, it may be for personal reasons, but the reference still makes it out to be a team rivalry, and I'd rather not second guess the source beyond a point. You can have a rivalry between two
455:
I think the point of the article was that the game is not a traditional rivalry for the
Florida Gators or the South Carolina Gamecocks as teams, but it is a rivalry of sorts for the Florida natives playing for the Gamecocks. Not sure that measures up to what CFB fans and WP:CFB would define as a
418:
The first bullet point in the second column appears to be discussing the
Florida-Florida State rivalry. Are you seeing something different? The second source actually says "This is a rivalry game for Florida-native Gamecocks," i.e. the South Carolina Gamecock players from the state of Florida.
252:
even though the involved teams play for universities, not high schools. Every time one competitive team faces another, they are rivals. If they have faced each other more than once, a "rivalry" is involved. The vast majority of these "rivalries" are not notable. I believe that we need some really
361:
In your three linked sources above from the Google News
Archive, I cannot find the Florida-South Carolina "rivalry" references in the first and third sources at all -- the first appears to be an article about a murder involving high school rivals in Pahokee, Florida from the
228:? Alabama-Tennessee? Florida-Georgia? Auburn-Georgia? Florida-Florida State? Florida-Miami? Clemson-South Carolina? Yes, to all of those. Florida-South Carolina? Never. If the Florida-South Carolina annual series is notable as a "rivalry," then practically
374:, does mention a Florida-South Carolina rivalry, but only in the context of a personal rivalry for a South Carolina player from the state of Florida. None of these appear to be significant -- let alone in-depth -- coverage of the Florida-South Carolina series
234:. When every annual series is a rivalry, then the term "rivalry" has effectively become meaningless. This is not what was intended by WP:NRIVALRY, and is not supported by the precedents of the previous AfDs and talk page discussions of WP:CFB.
163:
321:
to be RS that discuss these games as a rivalry, although the coverage is barely sufficient. However, I am not an expert on college football, so I may be missing something; is there some feature of these sources that makes them not-reliable?
206:, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series
212:, not as a recurring game series. By that GNG standard, it is damn difficult to find significant, in-depth coverage of Florida-South Carolina as a "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources per
89:
84:
157:
93:
76:
558:
538:
123:
284:, not just as a recurring series. Every major Division I FBS game will have articles written about it the day after it's played; but that does not make the series a "rivalry."
116:
366:, and the third is a link to an article about the Florida-Florida State rivalry (with a secondary mention of the Clemson-South Carolina rivalry on the same page) from the
253:
in-depth coverage in highly reliable sources to conclude that a "rivalry" is notable, as opposed to routine passing mentions in local sources. I am not seeing that here.
578:
518:
178:
315:
311:
307:
145:
610:
590:
570:
550:
530:
509:
465:
443:
428:
406:
389:
345:
293:
266:
243:
58:
139:
135:
493:
has actually provided quite a comprehensive analysis of the sources. I can't see that the sources available substantiate that this is a
185:
17:
80:
216:. Has anyone ever written an in-depth feature article about the history and significance of the Florida-South Carolina series
151:
72:
64:
629:
40:
625:
606:
461:
439:
424:
402:
385:
341:
327:
289:
239:
36:
203:
195:
56:
259:
171:
586:
566:
546:
526:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
624:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
602:
499:
490:
486:
457:
450:
435:
420:
413:
398:
394:
381:
356:
337:
323:
285:
235:
332:
It would appear that I have read multiple sources incorrectly; see below. Changing vote to
199:
53:
213:
456:
rivalry between the teams, and certainly not a notable rivalry for purposes of WP:GNG.
254:
582:
562:
542:
522:
110:
278:- Most importantly, Cullen, there needs to be in-depth coverage of the series
222:? Has anyone has ever written a book about the Florida-South Carolina series
336:
since that leaves only one RS that refers to the topic in question.
618:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
231:
every annual series in the
Southeastern Conference is a rivalry
106:
102:
98:
559:
list of
American football-related deletion discussions
170:
539:
list of South
Carolina-related deletion discussions
184:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
632:). No further edits should be made to this page.
194:Non-notable college football rivalry that fails
8:
579:list of Schools-related deletion discussions
577:Note: This debate has been included in the
557:Note: This debate has been included in the
537:Note: This debate has been included in the
519:list of Florida-related deletion discussions
517:Note: This debate has been included in the
576:
556:
536:
516:
434:teams for personal reasons, can you not?
370:. The second linked article, from the
73:Florida–South Carolina football rivalry
65:Florida–South Carolina football rivalry
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
380:between the two universities.
1:
330:) 06:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
649:
611:11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
591:14:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
571:14:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
551:14:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
531:14:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
510:12:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
485:- the discussion between
466:06:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
444:06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
429:06:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
407:06:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
390:06:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
346:06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
294:05:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
267:05:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
244:05:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
59:00:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
621:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
372:Sarasota Herald-Tribune
368:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
48:The result was
601:per Dirtlawyer1.
593:
573:
553:
533:
364:Bangor Daily News
640:
623:
506:
504:
454:
417:
360:
264:
262:Let's discuss it
189:
188:
174:
126:
114:
96:
34:
648:
647:
643:
642:
641:
639:
638:
637:
636:
630:deletion review
619:
502:
500:
448:
411:
354:
260:
131:
122:
87:
71:
68:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
646:
644:
635:
634:
614:
613:
595:
594:
574:
554:
534:
513:
512:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
349:
348:
299:
298:
297:
296:
270:
269:
192:
191:
128:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
645:
633:
631:
627:
622:
616:
615:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
575:
572:
568:
564:
560:
555:
552:
548:
544:
540:
535:
532:
528:
524:
520:
515:
514:
511:
508:
507:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
480:
467:
463:
459:
452:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
415:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
373:
369:
365:
358:
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
329:
325:
320:
317:
313:
309:
306:
301:
300:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
277:
274:
273:
272:
271:
268:
265:
263:
258:
257:
251:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
233:
232:
227:
226:
221:
220:
215:
211:
210:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
121:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
620:
617:
598:
498:
494:
482:
377:as a rivalry
376:
375:
371:
367:
363:
333:
318:
304:
302:
281:as a rivalry
280:
279:
275:
261:
255:
249:
230:
229:
225:as a rivalry
224:
223:
219:as a rivalry
218:
217:
209:as a rivalry
208:
207:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
119:
49:
47:
31:
28:
603:Patriarca12
491:Dirtlawyer1
487:Vanamonde93
458:Dirtlawyer1
451:Vanamonde93
436:Vanamonde93
421:Dirtlawyer1
414:Vanamonde93
399:Vanamonde93
395:Dirtlawyer1
382:Dirtlawyer1
357:Vanamonde93
338:Vanamonde93
324:Vanamonde93
286:Dirtlawyer1
236:Dirtlawyer1
204:WP:NRIVALRY
196:WP:NRIVALRY
158:free images
303:Tentative
54:j⚛e decker
626:talk page
583:• Gene93k
563:• Gene93k
543:• Gene93k
523:• Gene93k
497:rivalry.
37:talk page
628:or in a
117:View log
39:or in a
495:notable
334:Delete,
276:Comment
202:. Per
164:WP refs
152:scholar
90:protect
85:history
599:Delete
483:Delete
314:, and
256:Cullen
250:Delete
200:WP:GNG
136:Google
94:delete
50:delete
505:lwart
214:WP:RS
179:JSTOR
140:books
124:Stats
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
607:talk
587:talk
567:talk
547:talk
527:talk
489:and
462:talk
440:talk
425:talk
403:talk
386:talk
342:talk
328:talk
319:seem
316:this
312:this
308:this
305:Keep
290:talk
240:talk
198:and
172:FENS
146:news
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
186:TWL
115:– (
609:)
589:)
581:.
569:)
561:.
549:)
541:.
529:)
521:.
501:St
464:)
442:)
427:)
405:)
388:)
344:)
310:,
292:)
242:)
166:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
52:.
605:(
585:(
565:(
545:(
525:(
503:★
460:(
453::
449:@
438:(
423:(
416::
412:@
401:(
384:(
359::
355:@
340:(
326:(
288:(
238:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
120:·
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.