User:Conyo14/Sports rivalries

Through looking at WP:AFD discussions on sports rivalries such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Knights-Kings rivalry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reds–Cardinals rivalry, or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cavaliers–Celtics rivalry, I've found that usage of WP:NRIVALRY sets a very high bar for sports rivalries and does not give true meaning to what a good sports rivalry article versus a standard sports rivalry article should do to cover WP:GNG. Therefore the outline for setting a bar for a rivalry should not just be Sports rivalries are not presumed notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline. It should be expanded to have specific examples of how WP:ROUTINE coverage and WP:NPOV create huge messes during the creation or deletion of these articles.

Reliable sources should cover both teams' rivalry moments extensively. These can include games, off-the-field moments, player-vs-player interactions, playoff games, fights during a game, or how fans perceive the teams. Keep in mind these sources do not have to explicitly state rivalry, just moments that are conclusive of a rivalry. This should not be used as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of WP:ROUTINE references. Rather, it should go into depth on certain moments within the rivalry. When assessing these sources, first be certain they are WP:SECONDARY and reliable. A WP:PRIMARY source would include any source from the official league website such as NBA.com or MLS.com. Even if a reporter is independent of the league, if it appears via a team's website, it would not be considered independent. Another part of secondary sources to keep in mind are the use of interviews. A player or coach might have their own views of a rivalry, but their own words do not make it independent. Assessing reliability can be done at WP:PERENNIAL, but in general, avoid using fan sites, blogs, or social media. Next, make sure to see there is a neutral point of view. Sources that clearly favor one team might not be the best aspect of a team's perception of a rivalry, but this can be debated further (aka a one-sided rivalry). Ideally, find a third party source that covers both teams. Further, see if there is a WP:COISOURCE involved. The source could be if ESPN covers a game of the week, they may call the two teams rivals. This would play favoritism on both teams and try to incite intensity despite lack thereof. When considering WP:ROUTINE mentions of a rivalry such as a source like CBS Sports saying set to renew their rivalry, it may also be trying to incite a rivalry that does not exist. This is misleading and might be using the term broadly for more clicks. Therefore, it is best to read the source in its entirety and see if there is significant coverage of the historical moments as mentioned above. Finally, when reviewing two teams historical moments, you might be inclined to call them a rivalry because of one super intense moment, such as both teams leaving the dugout, both teams meeting four consecutive years in the playoffs, or one team having favorable refs in a football match and the fans calling them out. Just because one team is good and may have "cheating" moments does not necessarily mean the two teams are rivals. Also, if a one-sided rivalry exists for the sake of one fan base's frustration with a team, that does not mean the team are rivals either. All this can be chalked up to original research, which cannot be used to discuss rivalries.

For the most part, sports rivalry articles such as Red Sox–Yankees rivalry, Arsenal F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry, India–Pakistan cricket rivalry, Bruins–Canadiens rivalry, and 49ers–Cowboys rivalry provide a good insight into using WP:GNG and how to apply rivalry moments from sources. The lede is often where these sources are located, but they can be scattered throughout the article. They can also not exist in the article, but this would not help out in an WP:AFD discussion and only waste time for the nominator doing an extensive WP:BEFORE or the author also having to pull up these sources.