User talk:Daniel

Buccaneers–Eagles rivalry

Not necessarily saying the article should have been kept, but I noticed your comment The couple of keep-leaning comments, and the sources presented by said comments, were refuted by noting their lack of independence. Alvaldi's comment at 20:08 7 January 2025 is a nice summation of this. I think its worth noting that Alvaldi said to keep the article on the basis that there was enough independent, in-depth sources for notability (cited Tampa Vs. Philadelphia Rivalry Has A Deep History (2024), Buccaneers, Eagles renew old rivalry (2009), Bucs, Eagles know each other well - Rivalry forms as they've met 6 times since 1999 (2003), Emotional opener - Eagles, Buccaneers renew rivalry at new stadium (2003).). There were a few other sources that were non-independent that were presented, but a good number of them were actually independent. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, but the two sentences are somewhat separate - the attempted refbombing of the debate, Alvaldi aside, were of sources that are "probably perfectly fine to use them in the article to source some facts, but as they are not independent sources so they do not help establish that the article passes WP:GNG which is needed for it not to be deleted" (to use Alvaldi's words). Josh and yourself showed a consensus that Alvaldi's sources were marginal, and Alvaldi (funnily enough, despite !voting keep) refuted the attempted refspam by KatoKungLee. Have clarified my wording to make this sentiment more obvious. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Happy to restore to draft for further work if so desired, anyone please let me know. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]