Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braves-Mets rivalry (2nd nomination)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Braves-Mets rivalry
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

*Delete-The problem with comparing it to the Philils/Mets rivalry is this- That article is sourced, with multiple sources independent of either one. There's plenty of info in there, such as info regarding the statements by Jimmy Rollins and Carlos Beltran. The Mets/Braves article simply has no sources, and almost no content. If sourcing and content can be added to the article, i'm very willing to change my vote to keep. (Disclaimer: I'm a Phillies phan). Umbralcorax (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary fork Mayalld (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand why less intense rivalries, Mets-Phillies rivalry, exists, but the Braves-Mets rivalry is completely absent. The main reason for the last deletion was the bias, which I intend for this time to not happen. This article is important for baseball rivalries in general as it has lasted longer and in a more intense state than NYM-PHI. These teams are some of the largest fan bases in baseball, and the rivalry is intense, yet you feel this article doesn't deserve mention in an encyclopedia which basically includes everything? JuliusNero (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't include everything. It only includes topics that are notable. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this not notable but other baseball rivalry articles, with much more trivial backgrounds and smaller fan bases, are? JuliusNero (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you see articles like that, nominate it for AFD or prod it and they will probably get deleted. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I never said if this was notable or not, I was just replying to you saying that Wikipedia includes everything. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After the changes that have been made, my vote is changed to KEEP. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep a lack of sources on an article that can be easily sourced and improved is not a reason for deletion. The Braves-Mets rivalry is long and notable. The only real reason to delete this article would be if we got rid of the majority of rivalry articles. I'll go dig up some sources, but seriously, go ask a Mets fan what they think of Chipper Jones and I'm sure you'll have your answer. (Not a Mets fan). SMSpivey (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added some quick text and references from the NYTimes, AJC, and NY Daily News. Pretty sure those are respectable sources to start with. SMSpivey (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - As I stated in my nom for the first AFD, this subject is really non-notable as an encyclopedic topic. (Mets-Phillies article notwithstanding, as Other Stuff Exists.) The previous incarnation was deleted "partly because" (inserted for clarity) it had become full of uncited POV rants by both sides, and especially against Chipper Jones. These issues can be better covered on the Braves and Mets pages anyway. As a deleted page, the creator should have requested permission to recreate the page, and as such, this really should have been speedied as a recreation, even though the content was not duplicated. Consequently, a decision of no consensus should result in the page being deleted, not kept. - BillCJ (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for basic notability, the sources I added clearly assert that the subject is notable. People coming in and adding POV about certain players can be expected in rivalry articles and should be appropriately policed. However, fear of vandalism is no reason to not include a clearly notable topic. As for the recreation issue, I'm not sure what should/will happen along those procedural lines.SMSpivey (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I disagree that it's notable enough for its own article, as did enough other editors that it was deleted previously. As to properly policing and "fear of vandalism", short of a permanent semi, policing the previous article proved to be practically impossible, as anyone watching this new article will soon find out. But that was never the main reason. - BillCJ (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As of right now there are articles referenced that deal directly with the rivalry from the NYTimes, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, ESPN, and the NY Daily News. These are all sources independent from the organizations, the articles run over a number of years, and they were produced from different regions/countries(not all of which were from NY or GA). As far as I can tell, these confers notability via WP:NOTE. SMSpivey (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Amply sourced. Thus, notability is established. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's absolutely nothing in the article about the rivalry between the teams themselves. The only example given regards an individual player, not the Braves as a whole. The local articles cited read more like the local papers trying to make something out of nothing, and the national ones don't discuss the rivalry as a whole but specific instances regarding individual players, which do not a rivalry make. As Clara Peller would say, where's the beef? Perhaps the page should be moved to Rocker-Mets fans rivalry. -Dewelar (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is one article from a national organization from 2006 referencing the rivalry and not just specific instances regarding individual players. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject is notable, as established by the sources aready present. And there is more that can (and eventually should be added), such as the 1999 NL East race and NLCS, the very tight 2000 NL East race, Chipper Jones' remarks during that period and the Met fans reactions, to a lesser extent the Tom Glavine signing(s) and renewed intesity to the rivalry during the 2008 season. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will out myself here as having absolutely no interest whatsoever in baseball ... however ... in the news media one of the toughest "beats" has traditionally been the sports teams, and of those, baseball is heightened further yet. Baseball is an American institution and intertwined in a city's psyche (with fields being a major investment) and fans heavily entrenched in all manner of details. The sports writer covering each team only has one game each week, generally, yet has to write something relevant and interest-ish every day that week. Based on that, I have little doubt that if such a rivalry exists, it will have been written about at least by each city's major newspapers. Also see Category:Baseball rivalries. -- Banj e  b oi   18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, such an article could probably be written about any two teams that compete in the same league, much less the same division, especially if the two teams happen to be good at the same time. The question is, does that make it a "rivalry" that deserves an entire article rather than, say, a paragraph or two in the article of each of the involved teams? For me, a rivalry has to reach Yankees-Red Sox, Dodgers-Giants, or Cardinals-Cubs proportions before meriting its own article. I've been a Twins fan for fifteen years, and I'd argue against even our own "rivalry" with the White Sox. -Dewelar (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "I have little doubt that if such a rivalry exists, it will have been written about at least by each city's major newspapers." And it has been. For example:
 * (oops, that's the Braves own website, not a newspaper)     Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Multiple independent coverage would suggest that for a significant amount of our readers this is notable enough and the coverage would meet the GNG. It may be true that articles revolving around "any two teams that compete in the same league" et al could be written but we'll have to cross that bridge in its time. As far as I can tell, the challenge here is to write a good enough article so that people like me might read past the lede. -- Banj e  b oi   10:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Closing administrator, please keep in mind, since this nomination editors have added signifigant sources, and completely rewrote the article. The nominator should not be patting themselves on the back, or getting any satisfaction or credit from these improvments to the article: Introduction to deletion process states:  Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved. Also: Potential, not just current state In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort. travb (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Keep - I agree with user travb's comment about Wikipedia:Potential. I also think documenting the aspects of this rivalry is a very worthwhile cause, and even in this early stage of the article's history it's clear there are quality references available, and that there are editors interested in improving the article. If someone is going to put in quality time working on a Wikipedia article, I say more power to them, let them go for it. Monowi (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, every two teams that play each other have a rivalry. Sources do not support this very short article--an article that is short because the rivalry isn't worth mentioning. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2009 (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.