Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities by professional sports championships


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

List of cities by professional sports championships

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Original research by synthesis and hopelessly POV. The title says "professional" sports championships, yet it excludes several professional leagues (i.e.: Canadian Football League, National Lacrosse League), but tries to narrow the scope in the lead to the "big four" leagues, which is arbitrary. Lower down it changes the classification again to reflect "major league", but excludes defunct major leagues such as the World Hockey Association and National Hockey Association. The American Football League is ignored because the NFL was "more established", and I presume the American Basketball Association is disregarded for the same reasons. For hockey alone I can think of at least six or seven major professional leagues that were ignored. To further muddy the issue, the article confuses "city" with "metro". All of this confusion and POV exists because such a list has not been compiled in primary or secondary sources. Resolute 03:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that "championship" also has a POV definition. i.e.: The Montreal Canadiens have 23 Stanley Cup championships as members of the NHL, 24 Stanley Cups overall, 25 National Hockey League championships and 26 overall championships as there was a time when the Stanley Cup was not a league-specific title.  The total of 23 was picked for some reason that is not immediately obvious. Resolute 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —Resolute 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  —Resolute 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  —Resolute 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  —Resolute 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting, but just number crunching. An encyclopedia should be for facts, not different ways they can be combined and compared. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the "Big Four" concept is pretty well established within US contexts, this list arbitrarily ignores the historical roots of the current versions of those leagues, most notably using an uncited claim that the AFL wasn't considered the NFL's equal until it was subsumed as justification for leaving off all AFL champs. Too arbitrary and unjustified. oknazevad (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with the whole concept, not just the details, as being suitable for an encyclopedia. You might as well have "List of United States states by national leadership" and compare them by number of presidents, vice presidents, Supreme Court justices, and commanding generals born in each state. Or any other combination of data about any topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and observation by Kitfoxxe above. This article also makes me sad as since June of 2006 I was under the impression that Raleigh had a professional sports championship, but I guess I was wrong because they are not on this list.  -Pparazorback (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Side note: as Pparazorback points out, the fact that Raleigh (home of the Carolina Hurricanes) was left off is just further proof of how poorly the list is put together. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If there are problems with the list, discuss it on the talk page, and work to improving it. Articles don't have to be instantly perfect.  It is quite appropriate for a Wikipedia article to list notable information in a convenient way to find it.  Listing how many notable sports awards each city has won, listing the ones with the most first, is fine.  And it isn't original research if the information can easily be found in any number of places to confirm this, be it the official records, official websites, newspapers, or books written about the teams, or all the stats for a certain sports game.   D r e a m Focus  10:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is original research to decide what is a notable sports championship. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The news media already has decided which are notable, as have the various sports organizations themselves. Major_professional_sports_leagues_in_the_United_States_and_Canada explains what the big four are, that how they are referred to. If you want to add less popular sporting events, then discuss that on the talk page.  D r e a m Focus  18:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not, remember any championship that is notable qualifies for a page. As such there are many more notable championships than just the big 4. What you are suggesting is deciding which are more notable than others. And to decide on degrees of notability is inherently POV and original research. -DJSasso (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And very POV. Resolute 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   communicate 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Indiscriminate list with unclear and invalid inclusion criteria.  Snotty Wong   communicate 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you reason that? Listing which cities, in order, won the most championships, is rather discriminating for a list, with very clear inclusion criteria.  D r e a m Focus  18:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the nomination and/or any of the comments above? Why, for example, does this list only include American and Canadian cities?  Why does this list only include championships for baseball, basketball, American football, and hockey?  What about all of the other professional sports, like soccer, rugby, lacrosse, cricket, field hockey, etc.?  Why does this list exclude certain professional sports leagues, such as the World Hockey Association, National Hockey Association, American Basketball Association, and any other leagues listed at List of professional sports leagues?  Snotty Wong   babble 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you like the name of the list changed to List of cities in American and Canada by professional sports championships? As I said already, the news media groups these four sports together, calling them the Big Four.  See Major_professional_sports_leagues_in_the_United_States_and_Canada.   D r e a m Focus  22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we were to accurately name this article, it would be List of cities in America and Canada by Big Four professional sports championships. Then it would become much more clear why this article should be deleted.  Snotty Wong   squeal 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Also this info seems to be covered in various other locations on wikipedia and in much better formats, updated and without the POV problems mentioned. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I really am quite close to just using Britannica online already, I do love this article even though it is quite imperfect can you imagine the time and effort to compile these stats by yourself? Deletes make all great points but why don't you ADD to the article rather then SUBTRACT the entire thing?  Multiple lists or collapseable lists would work great.  Vandalism, forget for a moment all the alphabet soup of wiki-policy actually read the first paragraph of Vandalism.  I will always be a proud wikipedian, but there are just so many other sources online that don't find the need to burn books that are referenced and cited.  As those sites expand in cited sourced material some would have Wikipedia building a consensus to be the next charred ruin of the Library of Alexandria?  You are killing the very thing that feeds Wikipedia with cited and sourced material.  Byzantium did that and directly caused the Renaissance withVenice attracting the resulting brain-drain, as great Constantinople died on the vine.  There was once AOL but then came Google, if you are not considerate of your members legitimate contributions, they contribute to the future's success story, just ask AOL, the Alexandrian Library and Byzantium.  Thank you for your consideration.  Hholt01 (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am in full agreement with Hholt01. This is a useful list that contains verifiable information which adds to the value of the Wikipedia project as a source of reference. The noms argument seems to be that this list is too exclusive (only Big 4), but that is a good reason to expand the list, not delete it. Dolovis (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is that it is both original research and suffers from at least three different POV issues, of which the limitation to the "big four" is but one. Resolute 20:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a trivial intersection. The list is compiled by a non-defining characterstic. Championships do not necessarily belong to the city where they were won, where the team played, or what the team was named at the time of the win. They belong to the teams, and when teams move, their records move with them. The teams do not even necessarily belong to the cities in American professional sports. While number of championships could be a valid and defining charateristic for a list of teams, it is not one for cities.  Jim Miller  See me 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and JimMiller's points above -Pparazorback (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep good, solid example of a list. Cross reference is useful and is not excessive.  All information contained is noteable and within all policy bounds.  Since Wikipedia does not have "Drill-down" capability, this is the best closest alternative.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: clear (and ubiquitous) WP:OR, and unclear inclusion criteria. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response This is not original research. Tons of reliable sources regularly report on championships of various sports and the city where they reside. Listing here what others report is not original research.  Further, there is no analysis or synthesis from any of those sources.  Inclusion criteria could not be more clear:  cities with championship teams in the sports listed, as stated at the top of the list.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: adding up the number of times that championships have been held in a given city is most certainly original research, particularly as none of these reports on which this OR is based are actually cited. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Addition is okay Routine calculations such as the addition of numbers is not original research per WP policy, see WP:CALC (a part of the WP:OR policy you are quoting.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But this isn't routine adding of numbers. What is being decided here is what numbers to add and which not to add. That is what the original research is. Routine adding of numbers is adding of numbers when there has been no judgement call made. In this case one has been, to leave certain numbers out. Routine adding of numbers would be say, adding the number of points scored by a player over his career when the numbers come from a couple different sources for different years. No judgement call being made here, we are purely adding the number of points he scored. -DJSasso (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also point out that there is significant OR in defining the "cities" that are being used in the list. Finding reliable sources that call the Devils and Islanders New York City teams would be pretty hard. Harder still would be to find sources crediting those teams' championships to NYC. Combining those teams into one city, and then defining it by the MSA, while simultaneously having other cities directly listed is problematic at best. Further, having teams who self-identify as regional or statewide assigned to particular cities is also original research, especially since this is not spelled out in the criteria. Should this list remain, it would have to made consistent as to how it defines the city of any given team - the city it played in or the city/state it was named for, but not some editor-chosen combination thereof. If it is cities where the teams play, East Rutherford, NJ would need to be added to the list. If it is by team name, then the whole article should be renamed to "List of locations..." so that Colorado, New Jersey, Minnesota, etc. could have their own entries.  Jim Miller  See me 21:41, 17 November 2010 (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.