Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State–Virginia 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong| [gab] || 06:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State–Virginia football rivalry

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's hard to see how a rivalry can be notable if the best source describes it with quotes such as "I wouldn't say this is a big rival game for us" or "This has developed into a rivalry now on the basis of one game, I guess" Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've cited sources from both the University of Virginia and Florida State University, confirming that it's a rivalry, as well as an independent book about college football rivalries that it is indeed one. The quote above is from one person back in 1993 giving his opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of the sources cited in the article actually has Bobby Bowden stating "You can talk about being a rival with someone, but it's not a true rivalry until both teams win a game." I bow to the great Bobby Bowden and say that if he says one game is not a rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bobby Bowden was actually saying it is a rivalry, to be fair. Both teams had won a game when he made that statement. Virginia was in fact the only conference team that had won a game against FSU at that time. George Welsh was the (Virginia) coach who said he didn't put much stock into one game (the opposite of what Bowden was saying). But I think this article is better served as focusing on the trophy than on the "rivalry" per se as the game is no longer regularly contested and was never more than a very small rivalry dreamt up by Bowden and the FSU president at the time. Omnibus (talk)
  • Again, that quote was from over 25 years ago. Things have changed since then and I'm sure his opinion has since changed. (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show any evidence that his opinion has changed?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The burden is not on me to show that his opinion changed. The point I was making is that the coach's opinion is not fact and thus should not be counted in this discussion. The fact is that both schools (ie administration and athletics) acknowledge this series as a rivalry and that I've provided proof for.
        • Ummm… yeah it is. If you're going to hold the position that an expert on college football like Bobby Bowden has changed his opinion that has been stated and published, then you need to provide some kind of evidence beyond your belief "that was 25 years ago so it might have changed."--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia does not work on opinion, it works on facts. The fact is that there is documented evidence that it's a rivalry game. What a coach, any coach, said about a rivalry at it's inception does not count as fact nor citation. You can cite that he said that at the start, but it does not disprove that it's a rivalry now. But again, my point is that his quote does not count as being evidence that it's not a rivalry. I've proven, by Wiki standards, that this game is a rivalry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps the closing admin will agree with you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like a case of
  WP:NOT. Will we be creating articles about all sports rivalries? Isn't every game a rivalry in some way? It just does not seem encyclopedic to document such things. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. On the fence for now, but here is some additional coverage discussing this as a rivalry, much of it focused on the trophy: this, pt 1, this, pt 2, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be a rivalry in the future, but as of now they have only played two games and they are 27 years apart.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul -- I don't think that is correct (that they only played twice). I'm not opining that it meets GNG, but they have played each other at least 19 times: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2019. Cbl62 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I say we send the article to draft until it reflects more accurately the situation. As it stands now, the article status and "reality" seem too diverse for a concrete discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GNG, but the article as it currently exists is a sub-stub that does not remotely capture the scope of the series. Draftifying will allow you to work on the article until it is ready for prime time. Sound ok? Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What if we turned this into an article about the trophy? The rivalry's not notable and should be deleted, the trophy might be notable though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reasonable suggestion. And one that has precedent where the history of the trophy is the focus rather than the games themselves. Compare Illibuck Trophy, Little Brown Jug, Nickel Trophy, Sitting Bull Trophy. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, so my vote is to rename (have fun with that, AfD Stats parser!) to

Jefferson–Eppes Trophy. SportingFlyer T·C 05:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with rename as the rivalry itself is not notable. The trophy may not be either, but I'd be interested to see if someone can make it work. Omnibus (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cbl62's nine citations. At minimum, "Jefferson–Eppes Trophy" passes GNG for Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States (Beehive Boot, Cajun Crown, etc). The only question is whether to present this as a "trophy" or "rivalry" article in the lede (see above cat re same). Either way, the rest of the article would be nearly identical. CFB project is capable of addressing the two options post-AfD. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The very existence of a trophy makes the trophy notable enough for Wikipedia, in other words? That doesn't seem like it could be a correct assumption, but maybe it is. Omnibus (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as in time at both universities I never experienced a single person who thought this was a "rivalry game" in any sense of the phrase. It's played every five or six years and the only basis for being a rivalry game is that a trophy was once made up after UVA upset FSU and finally someone (didn't matter who) had beaten the 'Noles in the ACC. After Miami joined the conference, no one has ever pretended this is a rivalry game at all... and really, no one ever did before that point either that I'm aware of. On the other hand, the trophy was made at some point though I'm not totally sure it exchanges hands or has been seen since. As per above, I also vote to rename the article to

• With a rename to the trophy I could revisit my Delete vote. As it is, I see no encyclopedic value to this rivalry article. Voting on the present AfD it is a strong delete for me. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I really don't love this article (it appears to be a candidate for politics-inspired vandalism and edit warring considering the apparent ongoing controversy surrounding the
  WP:GNG, per the sources provided by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - these are large football teams and the rivalry is not trivial MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2019 (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.