Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals 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. The last AfD on this article was a little over a month ago, ending with a weak consensus to keep the article, and a note that if it goes unimproved for awhile it will likely end up back at AfD. However, a month is really not quite enough time to wait before renominating, and there isn't a strong consensus here one way or the other. I understand the nominator wasn't aware of the previous nomination, and that's ok. Let's give this article at least 3 months or so before we send it back to the chopping block. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Cardinals–Royals rivalry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This honestly isn't a very major rivalry (and WP:NRIVALRY does state that rivalries must demonstrate some form of notability). I looked at the references provided, and some of them simply were references to calling it the "I-70 Series" rather than asserting why this is notable, and at least two were just blog posts (one of them about how this "rivalry" is becoming rather stale). Kansan (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't find the sources compelling last time, and I still don't now. Columnists needing to find something to write about does not make this a rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - For the same reasons as in the last AfD just a few weeks ago. I don't think anything has changed since then. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - for crying out loud, give it more than a month before you renominate something for deletion! I'm sorry I haven't yet had a chance to integrate the sources into the article, I have a life outside Wikipedia.  Admittedly, it would be useful if other people would contribute as well.  Furthermore, I have not seen Wikipedia' policy on "compelling" sources, only reliable sources, which consensus determined were sufficiently identified only a month ago.  This renomination is premature.  There are many stub articles on Wikipedia that are given time to grow.  If you delete this article then you should also nominate Citrus Series and Bay Bridge Series which are similarly lacking in references.  I'm not sure why this article has such a target painted on its chest, other than it's new. TempDog123 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: TempDog123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I was the nominator this time and did not see that it had been previously nominated so soon ago. Normally I probably would have noticed this but apparently did not check the talk page this time around. Kansan (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, it happens. But if that's the case perhaps you should just consider withdrawing the AfD.  TempDog123 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tempdog, and based on past outcomes such as Articles for deletion/Alabama–Penn State football rivalry - prominent rivalries are usually notable, and I think this fits the bill. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see this as "prominent". That's apparently the minority opinion, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a diehard Royals fan and I can attest to the fact that there is nothing prominent about this rivalry. Kansan (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's not the minority opinion after all. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Bearian what is your opinion of "prominent". Secret account 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete.. Not a real rivalry. We don't need to write articles about every two teams that face each other. Needs to have a longstanding historical rivalry for it to be notable. Spanneraol (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdraw AfD. The last AfD was a month ago. I think the article probably should be deleted, it doesn't appear to have nearly the history of the interleague in-state (and in-city) Mets-Yankees rivalry for instance which I think is in the bottom tier of notable rivalries. But regardless, this is too short of a period to allow for it to be saved in my opinion. -- NINTENDUDE 64 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So is that a keep or a delete !vote? You didn't nominate the article for deletion, so you can't withdraw the nom. I'd say that a month is plenty of time for the editor to make at least one edit on the page to try to demonstrate notability, especially given that it's been at AfD for about ten days or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe for people who do nothing but hang around editing Wikipedia all day! For people with families, jobs, lives, it might be a little more difficult.  But I'm legitimately curious and never received an answer to this question - is there an intention to similarly delete Citrus Series or any of the other interleague rivalries that are similarly lacking!?  I'll note that the number of sources identified for this article outnumber those cited in Citrus Series.  Take a close look at Citrus Series, and you'll see that two of the four articles just cite to the respective team histories, and the last two talk about how the rivalry...isn't considered much of a rivalry at all!  Again, don't understand the unwarranted attention this article is receiving. TempDog123 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, looking through the history of the aforementioned Citrus Series I see that you actually edited out unsourced information from that article, but never saw fit to nominate it for deletion. Why not?  It is less sourced than this article and its only references talk about how the rivalry is not really a rivalry.  I'm legitimately curious about the distinction that is being drawn here. TempDog123 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall editing it. It may be a candidate for deletion as well. I'll consider it. It's not that relevant to this AfD, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete facing each other in the World Series is not a rivalry, no indication in national sources that this is a notable rivalry, it's all local, team, and some fan blogs sources some of which doesn't look like to be independent of the rivalry. It's like saying Marlins and Yankees are a rivalry because they played against each other in the World Series and there is probably more Yankees fans than Marlins fans in Miami. Every local newspaper will mention any team playing each other as a rivalry. The first close was really a no consensus, so the AFD is valid here. Secret account 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Marlins and Yankees argument is a Strawman. It's not just playing each other in one World Series, it's the controversial Denkinger call, that they are located in the same state, and that they play each other six times each year in interleague play.  Since we are on the topic of Florida teams, the latter point seems to be notable enough to sustain other interleague rivalries such as Citrus Series without warranting an AfD, even when those two teams have never played each other in the World Series. I've yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for that double standard.TempDog123 (talk)
 * Comment I !voted "weak keep" last time, mainly since "there's likely other tidbits floating around about the 'rivalry'". That was a presumption on my part.  However, I am disappointed that more sources have not been identified to satisfy WP:GNG's requirement of multiple independent sources of significant coverage since the last AfD, which was a "weak keep" consensus.   Note also that the article had been tagged with not meeting GNG since November 2011.  My good faith recommendation, taking into account people have real lives, is for interested editors to agree on a timeline whereby sufficient sources will be identified so a consensus can be reached on notability. Would another month be sufficient?—Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly wish I could make a steadfast commitment to improving the article myself. Wikipedia is not my pseudo-occupation nor even a legitimate hobby.  I simply identified something that was already mentioned in the rivalries sections of the articles (the Kansas City Royals page mentioned this as a "prominent rivalry" and elaborated upon such, which was inserted by another editor(s) long before I got involved) and turn it into a separate article.  Why that has been met with such hostility when I've demonstrated that less notable "rivalries" containing less sources have been immune to such criticism is beyond me.  If you want to trim the fat of Wikipedia sports rivalries to only the most prominent and noteworthy, be my guest, but I'd ask that you at least be consistent while doing so and give the other less prominent rivalry articles similar treatment.  Otherwise, if those other articles are given an indefinite time to grow and improve, I see no reason why this one should be treated so differently. Up to all of you, I suppose. TempDog123 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Brewers–Cubs_rivalry is another one that seems lacking for sources but is still in existence. It cites to Bleacher Report for crying out loud.  I see Muboshgu nominated it for deletion in April 2011.  That was over a year ago and no improvements appear to have been made.  Again, all I'm asking for is consistency.  If that article deserves a keep and hasn't been renominated over the course of a year, then this one should be given more than a month!  Otherwise delete this one if you must, but then I would expect Citrus Series and Brewers–Cubs_rivalry and other baseball "rivalries" of that nature to also end up in the cross-hairs. TempDog123 (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While it is understandably difficult sometimes, please try not to take the discussion of the article personally. Other stuff might exist because editors might not have gotten around to correcting it.  The fact that a discussion has started here and not there, is at least a sign that an attempt to improve some articles (if not immediately all article) is being made.  Again, we are all volunteers here. Can you commit to a date (one month?) for identifying additional sources, with the understanding that there is no prejudice for userfication and recreation of the article if sources are not found by that date but are identified at a later time.  That seems to be the best compromise for all parties.—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, but I'm not taking it personally. My manner of speaking (and typing I suppose) is just very direct.  By creating this article, I was simply trying to augment what already existed in the article entries for the respective teams.  If this AfD ended in the article being deleted, I would not suffer for it.  There are many other things going on in my life of much greater importance.  What does bother me though is the inconsistency of Wikipedia standards across articles that fall into the same broad categories.  Something like Mets-Phillies rivalry getting GA status when any Mets fan will tell you there was no rivalry prior to 2007 (and indeed, half the sources and half the article itself make no mention of a rivalry but are about individual games) while more established rivalry articles like Phillies-Pirates rivalry are relegated to "historical" unimportance baffles me.  This might seem entirely unrelated to this current nomination, as Muboshgu said above, but it's not.  If the watchers of the baseball articles are going to grant certain rivalries GA status and nominate others for deletion, then you need to set a much clearer standard for junior editors such as myself.  So far the only Wikipedia policy I've seen on this subject is WP:NRIVALRY cited above by Kansan, who was responsible for this second nomination.  It's a two sentence blurb that doesn't provide much in the way of guidance...at all.
 * As for the one-month time period, within that time period I think that I could commit to integrating the sources already found into the article. I cannot commit to finding more sources in that time that will satisfy your requirements, because frankly I'm not sure what exactly your requirements are.  You all seem to have different standards.  One person does not think local news is reliable.  Another sets forth that they must be "compelling" without defining that term.  I simply went by reliable sources but that seems unsatisfactory to many who are simply convinced this is not a rivalry, and nothing seems likely to change that opinion.  Nor do I see why this should be subject to such an arbitrary deadline of death when many of the other rivalry articles I've cited of similar (or worse) citation problems are not.  I don't edit Wikipedia on a daily basis, and frankly this article is not top on my list of priorities, though I may appear to be giving a rant to the contrary.  It would be better if others could commit to this article but that hasn't been forthcoming and I'm not sure it will be under your timeline either. TempDog123 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't like any of the rivalry articles.. Unless it involves long time established rivals (Red Sox/Yankees, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cards) then I see no reason for it.. that includes the Phillies/Mets one you mention. Spanneraol (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no idea the Mets-Phillies rivalry page was at GA status. I don't question its right to exist, but I do agree that these pages get out of hand. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (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.