Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canucks–Flames 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Canucks–Flames rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsalvagable mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:POV violations. The article takes several news articles about the Calgary Flames and several stories about the Vancouver Canucks to try and synthesize a story of a rivalry. Almost nothing of this article actually discusses an actual rivalry. It is simply the history of two sports teams mashed together into one article. Attempts at establishing the Flames-Canucks rivalry as being especially notable are the result of the editor engaging in POV editorializing. i.e.: "In the early and mid nineties, the rivalry was considered among the most intense in the NHL, with the two teams often battling for top spot in the Smythe and later Pacific Division", and the two assertions that divisional realignments "resolidified" the rivalry.

The very first paragraph of the body reveals the fatal flaws with this article: It mentions in one sentence that the two teams met in the playoffs four times in the 1980s, then goes off to discuss Vancouver's playoff run of 1982, and the Flames championship run of 1989. The closest thing to an argument on a notable rivalry is the direct playoff meetings, yet they are pushed below the two team's individual stories. Not to mention that the editor treats a book author's POV that the Flames' 1989 title run was made "easier" by the eliminaton of the Oilers as immutable fact despite the obvious reality that the Kings were both a better team than the Oilers that year, and had the best player in the sport's history.

There is little doubt that a rivalry exists between the teams on the basis of geography and 31 years of mutual history in the same division. But there is no evidence that it is encyclopedic or notable. This is not the Battle of Alberta, for which entire books have been written. It is akin to the old Flames-Jets or Oilers-Kings rivalries, which were simply the result of playing in the same division and meeting in the playoffs a few times. Hardly any more notable than any other divisional rivalry, as the lack of direct references will attest. Resolute 16:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —Resolute 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete - sports reporters mention "rivalry" much too often for the word to have any meaning coming from them. Game summaries are not evidence for a "rivalry", merely evidence that the teams played each other a lot. A multitude of uncited (or misleadingly cited) claims make this article tough to want to preserve. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of the article, but I am not sure there is much that is salvageable from this incarnation of it. Canada Hky (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, all that I find salvagable from most of these "rivalry" articles are head-to-head record and playoff history. These are things that I believe could easily fit within the division articles themselves. Resolute 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning on doing it, or saying it definitely is possible, just that if someone were to come up with a well-referenced, neutral article on the subject, I think there is a place for it on Wikipedia. Canada Hky (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete - This has come up before. There are few truely notable rivalries in sports. Ones that have books etc written about them. This is certainly not one of them. Full of Synth. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with the above. The tendency of fanboys to describe intense, vicious "rivalries" based on that the teams played a recent playoff series is acute, it's always fueled by bored sports reporters, and it's to the point I'm up for any consensus to ignore any sources that aren't from national magazines or books alleging the same.   Ravenswing  19:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched for evidence that this a notable rivalry. As Djsasso notes, rivalries usually engender books. There is a book by Cole in the list of references, and the book does discuss rivalries ("This book captures the great rivalries, the stars, and classic commentary moments from the days of radio.") but not specifically the Canucks–Flames, nor even rivalries specifically. I looked at the four times the book was cited, and I didn't see evidence it was used to support the claim about a rivalry. In most cases, it was simply used to document some event; in no case that I noticed did it document  an event involving both teams. The clearest statement in support of the thesis is "In the early and mid nineties, the rivalry was considered among the most intense in the NHL," yet this sentence is unsourced.


 * With 37 references, I wouldn't expect that all would directly support the title claim but I would expect a fair number would. There must be some, but I didn't see any. Most of the references aren't supporting events involving both teams. Three of which that do (refs 5,6 and 7) are statistical summaries, and do not use the word "rivalry".


 * I suspect someone can point out a few references which do talk about a rivalry, but it shouldn't be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I suspect half the readers here couldn't tell you anything about the UConn-Tennessee rivalry, but I could easily find 1000 references. I don't think a thousand are needed to support the claim, but I don't think we have a half-dozen here. --  SPhilbrick  T  21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some memorable series/games, but not a significant rivalry.  Patken4 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Go Oilers! 117Avenue (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Problems common to many sports rivalry articles with similar authorship. The nominator has said it all. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  21:31, 3 June 2011 (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.