Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Mets 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Cardinals–Mets rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

These two teams are not historical rivals. There's a lack of historical coverage to justify the article's existence. The information found in this article can be found elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Missouri,  and New York. Nemov (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This article does not demonstrate a "rivalry". It is a history of matchups between the Cardinals and Mets. Similar pages could be created for all possible MLB matchup histories. With the exception of genuine rivalries, these articles would be WP:FANCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What constitutes a genuine rivalry? There are a few sources in the article that call it a rivalry. I am not a huge baseball guy so I could be missing something.  ULPS ( talk •  contribs ) 16:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider any of the sources in the article to be from reliable sources, as they are mainly blogs or from unreputable websites, but that is just me. Let&#39;srun (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the WSJ and KSDK articles?  ULPS ( talk •  contribs ) 20:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @ULPS, there is definitely enough history and reputable source coverage of said history between the Mets and Cardinals to call it rivalry, and that is coming from a guy who is a big baseball fan. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The sources are a mix of ROUTINE or unreliable. Outside of what's in the article, this is the only thing I could find that is remotely close to GNG are this one: . Everything else is FNACRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: There does seem to be some coverage of this rivalry from pre-2000, as seen in [], [], [] (part 1), [] (part 2), [] (part 1), [] (part 2), and []. Would like to hear what others think, but I think there is enough GNG level coverage here. Let&#39;srun (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOPAGE there's very little included in this article that's not in other articles. This section on the New York Mets article pretty much sums it up. There's very little reason for a separate article other than WP:FANCRUFT. Nemov (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree with that assessment. It fails to cover the rivalry beyond a passing mention, when multiple reliable sources such as the Associated Press have given WP:SIGCOV. NOPAGE asks the question "Do related topics provide needed context?", which the Mets article fails to do, in my opinion. In totality, this article should remain as a Keep. Let&#39;srun (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What is included in this article that's not included elsewhere? There's already articles dedicated to the playoff series between the two clubs, extensive history articles, and articles on individual seasons as well. What context is this article bringing? Nemov (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is well written and details important moments in Mets-Cardinals history. A rivalry is implied by a storied and tense history, which these teams undoubtedly have with each other. If anything, it needs to be updated to include more recent developments in this rivalry, such as the brawl between the two teams on April 27, 2022.76.117.162.190 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. You can write an article like this for every team matchup that has faced each other over many years... doesn't mean we should. To be worthy of it's own article it needs more long term and cultural significance.. for example Yankees/Red Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cardinals are significant historical rivalries.. this one is not. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. These "rivalry" articles are getting out of hand and starting to take up way too much space on the team pages. Only sustained rivalries are notable enough to warrant entire articles, and this is not. The Mets had (past tense) a brief rivalry with the Cardinals in the 80s and that's it. The article even admits as much. That's hardly noteworthy enough to dedicate an entire article to the topic. Delete. TempDog123 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. Reviewing the sources posted earlier, Belleville News-Democrat is an interview with Ozzie Smith, an employee of the Cardinals, therefore not independent ❌; Newsday describes one incident of a player getting hit by a pitch and does not describe the teams as rivals, only using the term "rivalry" once in the intro (in a way that can describe any pair of teams) ❌, The first St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Herald-News are almost exclusively content from interviews of Cardinals and Mets employees so not independent ❌ ❌, The second St. Louis Post Dispatch has some independent content describing "bad blood" between the two clubs and can possibly be considered GNG,  but that article alone is not enough gfor a GNG pass.  Frank   Anchor  12:30, 3 November 2023 (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.