Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reds–Cardinals 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. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reds–Cardinals rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article purports to describe a rivalry that now exists between Major League Baseball's St. Louis Cardinals and Cincinnati Reds. The article relies on a single source to establish this rivalry, a Wall Street Journal article that looks at a few incidents that took place in 2010 and argues that a wonderful new sports rivalry may be forming. The article also vaguely tries to link the events in 2010 to two separate occurrences in the 1960s. No other source has been provided stating the basic premise that a Cardinals-Reds rivalry exists, and the best a search for additional sources begun after the beginning of a discussion on the article talk page has found to provide further support for this premise is a blog that believes that the Cardinals and Reds might develop the most interesting rivalry of this decade. The article then cobbles together some franchise history for the two teams to manufacture a rivalry, probably in opposition to WP:Synth. Reliance on a single article from 2010 which basically argues that a single season's worth of encounters has created a new rivalry also appears to run afoul of WP:Recentism and WP:ONESOURCE. Combined, these issues provide serious concerns regarding the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC) *Keep Both teams had a heated rivalry as referenced in the WSJ article. If people were just talking about 2010, I agree it would have been recentism and it should be deleted. However, 2010 was just a renewal, not an establishment of a rivalry. They hated each other in the 60's and combined with the geographic proximity, it is definitely a rivalry of note. Arnabdas (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am not seeing any compelling argument for this article, short of the one article this year in a relationship that dates well over a century. There is a great deal of referencing, but this is in support of what appears to be making an argument to support the contention of the rivalry.  I agree with the nominator citing Synth, Recentism, and (for all intents and purposes) one source.  I applaud the attempt at the article, but it simply doesn't belong here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as the originator of several of the talkpage discussions, in which I expressed pretty much the exact concerns raised by Indrian. umrguy  42  12:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge See proposal below. Arnabdas (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no sources for this, or rather, you have the single Wall Street JOurnal source claiming this. If a rivalry truly exists dating back to the 1960s, you should be able to find more sources; we are talking a nearly fifty year period here after all.  A single news reporter can say whatever he wants.  Prove your position with sources or your view has no merit. Indrian (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a book by William Cook called The Summer of '64: A Pennant Lost that details the rivalry better. http://books.google.com/books?id=G_9qSkkBWssC&printsec=frontcover&dq=1964+national+league+reds+cardinals&source=bl&ots=hnByA9XhIi&sig=eEDIDDQ9KSgOrc_CNbaao8i3tH4&hl=en&ei=tLOlTeD2NsnE0QGg_PWGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAzgK# Arnabdas (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Without reading the book, just skimming through the introduction - that book would be a great resource for an article on the '64 NL pennant race. However, it does NOT appear to be a source for a whole Cards-Reds rivalry.   umrguy  42  15:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that particular pennant race was a well publicized one in a long history. They have had seven times between them where they have finished 1st and 2nd. http://www.fungoes.net/2010/08/16/the-reds-cardinals-rivalry-in-perspective/
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the source you brought up is all about the greatness of the 1964 season. This discussion, however, is about whether or not the Cardinals and Reds have a true rivalry. That book you mentioned does not seemed to be arguing that these two teams have had a great rivalry, but rather that they had one great season of competition. Just because the Reds and Cardinals finished 1/2 in the 1964 standings does not make it a rivalry. For you to cite this source as though it was about the Reds/Cardinals is misleading. And the two clubs have finished 1st/2nd 8 times, not 7. However, the first two were back when both teams were part of the AA and the Cardinals finished 14 and 16 games ahead in those respective seasons. In 1943 the Cardinals finished 18 games ahead of the Reds, and in 2000 they finished 10 games ahead of Cincinnati. (Surely a 1st/2nd finish means little in regards to this "rivalry" if the second place team is behind by double digits in the win-lose column?) That leaves 4 close seasons between these two teams: 1926, 1939, 1964 and 2010. Only Four notable finished in over a 125 years of baseball. How can that be considered a significant rivalry?Ultimahero (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - There have been a couple good challenges of phony "rivalries" at AfD recently, but this one is ill-considered. These two teams have played one another more than 2000 times, they hail from the same general region of the country and play in the same league, and their rivalry is not only well-known but it has been covered in the press. This one is valid. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Carrite, could you please provide some sources covering this "well-known" rivalry? I've been a Cardinals fan for over 25 years, and never heard of it. What I see in the article is ONE source from the Wall Street Journal saying it COULD be the next great rivalry, based on last year's kerfluffle, and pointing out a couple instances in the '60s. I don't see how that, combined with playing each other a lot, necessarily makes a rivalry.  (And with two states in between them, "same general region of the country" isn't really relevant.)  umrguy  42  17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every National League team that dates from the late 19th century have played each other many times, and the Reds hail from roughly the same geographic region as all the teams in the Central Division except the Astros. Also, no press sources have been produced describing a rivalry save the single WSJ article sourced in the article.  I am afraid that your objections make little sense without additional sourcing to back them up. Indrian (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This smacks of recentism. If there had been books or something of that nature written about it then I could see an article about it. But this is clearly not a notable rivalry. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per breach of WP:RECENTISM. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's more to sports team rivalries than just playing each other on the field a bunch of times. This cuts both ways, as say Mets-Yankees and Cubs-White Sox are rivalries, despite infrequently playing each over as they compete for the same fans. At the same time, just because two teams now play often because they're in the same division doesn't make it a proper rivalry. It may develop as such, but that's a CRYSTALBALL and RECENTISM issue. And Cincinnati and St Louis aren't that close. oknazevad (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYNTH. One pennant race does not make a WP-notable rivalry, and the WSJ article is the only source arguing for the existence of a rivalry (and even then, it seems to be arguing that a rivalry might be developing more than anything). Might be okay if there were more sources on the rivalry itself, particularly prior to 2010, but I'm not seeing that right now. BryanG (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the reasons listed above. I don't see anything concrete that makes me want to keep this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete While these two franchises may dislike each other (although most of the discussion has seemed to specifically indicate that Reds fans particularly dislike Cardinal fans) that doesn't make it a rivalry. There have only been two competitive seasons between the teams, 1964 and 2010, and one fight that appears to have been an isolated incident. This is all the evidence that has been provided for this "rivalry" despite both franchises having existed for over a century. Surely a true rivalry has more to it than this.Ultimahero (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1939 wasn't competitive? And the teams finished 1-2 in both 1885 and 1887 too, although St. Louis ran up a pretty large margin those years. Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rlendog, having a number of competitive/close finishes to seasons doesn't necessarily make a rivalry, and without sources stating it, it would be a WP:SYNTH violation anyway. umrguy  42  18:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: BeenChanged (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Page 1 of "The Summer of '64: A Pennant Lost" states that "pitchers regularly threw knockdown pitched and batters stood their ground at the plate without charging the mound very often". So what about the fight that occurred in 1967, only three years after when the book is set. It was the same style of baseball, yet the Reds and Cardinals got in a fight that Tim McCarver described as: "Nothing fuels a rivalry like a good toe-to-toe, and we sure had one that night".
 * Page 14 states, "All last year we kept waiting for the Reds to make their move. They never made it; had too many guys in a slump." - Milwaukee Braves manager Bobby Bragan. This indicates that the Reds had the talent and were considered in contention for longer than one year; in other words, 1964 was not a fluke and the Reds were a good team as well.
 * Unfortunately, the free preview ends there.
 * The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry.
 * The teams are geographically close, have produced numerous Hall of Famers, play each other often in games that mean more to the fans than other series. They have had several extremely close pennant/division races and prior to the introduction of divisions in the MLB had a sustained level of competitiveness. Everyone can agree that the fact that the Reds were put in the west and the Cardinals in the east made no sense, and it effectively ruined the rivalry, in the same way that a team falling out of contention can; although that doesn't always happen (Cubs-Cardinals rivalry = Exhibit A). Now that the teams have been put back into the same division and the Reds have had time to rebuild (and 14 years is not long compared to 125 years of MLB), the rivalry has been restarted. The rivalry is boosted by - not based on - the current situation of the two teams. That combined with the fact that division realignment is all that broke up the otherwise continuous state of competitive play shows that this rivalry, although not of the highest level of prestige (BOS-NYY), is still existent and relevant to Major League Baseball and the two teams.
 * I feel that I have made many good points about why the article should be kept. Although not many users have left support for keeping it, I feel that the points I made are strong enough support for the article. Moreover, a large amount of argument for the delete side has been "Just because they play each other a lot doesn't mean it is a rivalry". I have continuously proven why there is more to Reds-Cardinals than other teams in the NL Central the Reds and Cardinals play. Every time I give my point to counter a reason for deletion, someone simply posts another reason for deletion that can be countered with my same points. That is why the "Delete" side seems so supported, because it is a lot of the same opinion posted after that opinion has been addressed. I think there is enough evidence of why it should be kept and so I will probably not contribute much more to this discussion. I think the outcome can be decided now, and to me it appears to be No Consensus, as other people have posted keep opinions that were not so much refuted as simply ignored.
 * While I am in no way changing my opinion to merge, I believe that if an admin so decides that this article is unfit for Wikipedia, it should be merged with Major League Baseball rivalries under the NL Central section. I think even "delete" people have agreed that it does show some level of rivalry that warrants mention in Wikipedia, even if not as an article. Once again, I am NOT changing my opinion to merge.
 * BeenChanged (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This gets repeated so much that it is almost becoming hackneyed, but it bears mentioning here once again: As stated in WP:TRUTH, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." What you or I believe about the facts you have presented has no bearing on this matter; what is important is whether or not reliable sources have established the concept of a Reds-Cardinals rivalry.  Right now, only one source has been found in which an author makes the claim that a rivalry exists between these teams.  This is despite the rivalry going back over forty years according to your arguments.  Unless you have further evidence to bring to bear on this matter, that is not enough to satisfy the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources.  Other than that one WSJ article, you do not have a source that speaks to the existence of a rivalry, only a list of specific events you believe constitute one.  Arguing facts is useless here because that is the wrong argument.  Bring more sources that show the existence of this rivalry and they will be weighed.  The rest is just smokescreen. Indrian (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And you'r misrepresenting the evidence you are presenting. The book is NOT about the supposed rivalry between the Reds/Cardinals. It's about the the 1964 season. Just because those two teams were among the top in that season does not make the source about those two teams specifically. (And it's often forgotten but the Phillies finished a game back of the Cardinals that year just like the Reds, so it's not like it was a two-horse race the whole season.) The fight in 1967 was an isolated incidence. There is nothing to indicate that it was caused by pre-existing hatred between the teams. (I'm not suggesting that they didn't hate each other; I'm sure they did, like most teams who compete do. The question is not if they hate each other but if they hate each other MORE THAN AVERAGE. Does their hatred go beyond what we would normally expect? Does it reach levels that exceed beyond just those two teams and affect baseball as a whole, like LA-SF or NY-BOS? It's not surprising that Tim McCarver would say what he did; we would expect players that took part in the fight to dislike the competition. But, again, does it go beyond normal baseball tension? You have to substantiate that with reliable sources, which is why the book doesn't count because it doesn't address the topic.)
 * You're misrepresenting the NL in the 60's when you say, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." The Cardinals did field strong teams in the 60's, winning three NL Pennants. However, the Dodgers also won three pennants and they finished 2nd to the Reds in 1961. So how was 61 an upset of the Cardinals specifically, as opposed to say the Dodgers who were in 2nd place? (And the Cardinals didn't have a 2nd place finish until 1963, or 1st until 1964, which suggests that they weren't at their best until a few years after the Reds reached the World Series. Also, can you please provide sources to back up the claim that the Reds were predicted to finish near the bottom?)
 * The teams are geographically close, and have had a number of Hall of Fame Players. But you could say the same about the Pirates or Cubs, so why is St. Louis/Cincinnati bigger than Pittsburgh/Cincinnati or Chicago/Cincinnati? You say that they, "play each other often in games that mean more to the fans than other series." Can you prove that with reliable sources? The St. Louis fans on Wikipedia have said that their games against Cincinnati don't really stand out. It would seem that you just don't like the Cardinals and that's your entire basis for claiming a rivalry.
 * You say, "several extremely close pennant/division races and prior to the introduction of divisions in the MLB had a sustained level of competitiveness" but you fail to point out when those close seasons were; you prefer to generalize by saying "several" and thus the rest of us have to guess if we don't know the specifics. But, as I've pointed out above, they've had four close seasons: 1926, 1939, 1964 and 2010. Four close seasons in over 125 years of baseball hardly seems to make a rivalry. You write, "Everyone can agree that the fact that the Reds were put in the west and the Cardinals in the east made no sense, and it effectively ruined the rivalry..." But I would not agree with this statement because I would not agree that they had a rivalry in the first place. Your assuming your conclusion. You also say, "Now that the teams have been put back into the same division and the Reds have had time to rebuild (and 14 years is not long compared to 125 years of MLB), the rivalry has been restarted." So one good season means there's a rivalry? True rivalries don't depend on both teams having constant success. Cardinal fans and Cubs fans always hate each other, even though the latter has been historically inept. The same goes for NY/BOS and LA/SF. If your saying this rivalry only exists when both teams play well then it's not really a rivalry; it's merely a race between two teams that happen to be good at the moment.
 * Sir, you and your arguments have not been ignored. Your dislike of the responses that are given is not the same thing as no response being given. It is your responsibility to make the case that this rivalry exists and, what's even more important, provide reliable sources to substantiate those claims. So far only one source has been given. I have tried hard to follow your argument point by point in my response. If you believe that I have failed to sufficiently address something you've raised then tell me specifically what it is and I will be glad to speak to that point. But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted and should not be added to the MLB rivalries page. (If it's deleted for not being a substantial rivalry then why add it to a page about substantial rivalries?)Ultimahero (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you say, "But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted". So your opinion is what determines if it is kept? I believe that is in direct violation of the policy on who decides the article's fate, as you have taken part in discussion. Unless you are not in charge of it, then your argument that "you think it should be deleted" is no better than mine that it should be kept. As far as unsourced remarks in my post, those are statements that have already been made on the talk page for the article; I am simply restating them. It is not the easiest thing to find sources for topics of this nature that date back into the early/mid 1900s. There are many, many sources that back up the current events and claim it to be a rivalry. Why would so many media sources call it a rivalry if it was only one event?
 * Articles that call it a rivalry found by searching "reds cardinals rivalry" on Google:
 * http://digitalsportsdaily.com/mlb/2807-reds-cardinals-rivalry-heating-up.html
 * http://sullybaseball.blogspot.com/2010/09/cardinals-vs-reds-could-be-rivalry-of.html
 * http://www.fungoes.net/2010/08/16/the-reds-cardinals-rivalry-in-perspective/
 * http://bleacherreport.com/articles/433691-brandon-phillips-brawl-great-for-cardinalsreds-rivalry-baseball - this one specifically addresses the Reds-Cardinals rivalry compared to others
 * http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_2b61fe77-0037-5cad-beff-cd067789a33c.html - a St. Louis sportswriter who agrees with the rivalry!!!
 * http://blogredmachine.com/2011/01/24/the-rivalry-renewed-cincinnati-reds-vs-st-louis-cardinals/
 * http://www.101espn.com/post/54887_welcome_to_the_cardinalsreds_rivalry
 * I stopped after half of page 2 and already here are sources. BeenChanged (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I told you that if you felt your arguments were being ignored then just tell me and I will respond. But you did not tell me which ones, if any, you feel I've failed to address. And I have every right to participate in this discussion. Furthermore, you must realize that by taking different sides we necessarily will argue our points in different ways. You have to provide sources because your trying to establish a position. Certainly I cannot be expected to provide sources to prove that something DOESN'T EXIST, can I? So all I can do is respond to what you say, which I believe I've done so. It's true that I said, "But I don't believe this constitutes a rivalry and thus believe the page should be deleted", but that isn't all I said. That was a summary statement of my position. I've written much more on the topic, and, quite frankly, I feel as though it is my responses that have gone unheard.

As to you sources, thank you for posting them here. The first one calls it a rivalry but in no way substantiates the claim. We don't know if it's referring to a perceived historical rivalry or just one season. The second is a blog, which is not exactly scholarly, that says the rivalry, COULD BE the next big rivalry. This source cannot be used on the basis that it is projecting into the future. The third attempts to detail 1/2 finishes between the two clubs, although as I've pointed out half of what it provides don't really count because they were blowout years (1885, 1887, 1943, and 2000). And even this article admits that there have been many long stretches of nothingness between two teams. And, I'm not sure what the source is. It's not a paper, so I'm unsure if it's even acceptable. The fourth source has the same problem as the first, namely, it does not explain if the rivalry is historical or recent, although it seems to be referring to recent events only. The fifth talks about the rivalry as if it were just starting, saying, "The NL Central needs a fresh-popping rivalry" and "But we've got something cooking, and the Cardinals and Reds have the ingredients for a feisty rivalry." So that source clearly speaks to what the rivalry COULD BE. The sixth article speaks of "renewing" the rivalry, but it's clearly speaking of renewing the intensity of 2010, not historically. The final link did not work.

So of your 7 sources, 1 doesn't work, 5 focus only on the recent history and the projected future (and thus cannot be accepted due to violating recentism) and only one COULD work. However, the one possibly good source, the third article, is the one that I'm unsure is usable because I don't know what it is. (It's clearly not a paper.) But please tell me it you know. So thanks for attempting to bring articles, but you'll have to keep trying because most of these don't meet the criteria.Ultimahero (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about the "Fungoes" article, it says it is an ESPN affiliate blog. That would be reliable. Why do you discount the fifth article. It is by a writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. His article says that the rivalry "ranges from the boardroom to the clubhouse". That is not talking about the future, that is the present and the past. In talking about the rivalry rekindling itself, he says "This new rivalry isn't quite code red, but it's getting there." This proves my point that although it isn't yet very prominent, it does exist.
 * On an unrelated note, I did not mention any of my arguments I thought were being ignored because they are not being ignored. They are being shot down with the same old "I [you the user] think it doesn't exist, therefore it should be deleted. You haven't cited any sources (debatable), therefore your opinion can't possibly be correct and I [you the user] win. Delete." BeenChanged (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You made a point by point case for your argument, and I have responded point by point. Although I do agree that until now you have not included enough sources (although more would be helpful), I have interacted with your points. Please see my responses above and reply to them. Again, I do not deny that the Reds and Cardinals have a rivalry in a very generic sense. But it's only a rivalry from one season, 2010. It's not old enough to be considered a true rivalry. I explained why I do not count the fifth source. I wrote, "The fifth talks about the rivalry as if it were just starting, saying, "The NL Central needs a fresh-popping rivalry" and "But we've got something cooking, and the Cardinals and Reds have the ingredients for a feisty rivalry." So that source clearly speaks to what the rivalry COULD BE." The article is focused on the 2010 and beyond; it doesn't establish any history. Thank you for pointing out the third source is an ESPN affiliate. Do you know who the author is? Finally, since you only defended the 3rd and 5th sources, are you agreeing that the others are inadmissible?Ultimahero (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This section of the discussion is the only part I have contributed to (apart from a small post in the section below). So I have been responding and your above posts have already been responded to with responses I agree with. The Fungoes blog does not give an author. It is powered by WordPress and is a Cardinals based blog, which helps further disprove the argument that Cardinals fans do not agree it is a rivalry. That is simply the opinion of one Cardinals fan. Much like the assumption that I am pushing for this because I don't like the Cardinals, which is not true. I don't like the Cardinals, but I am pushing for this because I think it is indeed a real rivalry, I am passionate about writing the article about it, and when I say Reds fans don't like them, I don't mean I don't, I mean many Reds fans don't. BeenChanged (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, sir, I don't think you've responded to my responses. For example, you originally wrote, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." I replied by saying, "You're misrepresenting the NL in the 60's when you say, "The Reds were picked to finish near the bottom of the standings in 1961, instead they made it to the World Series. The Cardinals were the powerhouse of the 1960s, so that is clearly an upset which causes rivalry." The Cardinals did field strong teams in the 60's, winning three NL Pennants. However, the Dodgers also won three pennants and they finished 2nd to the Reds in 1961. So how was 61 an upset of the Cardinals specifically, as opposed to say the Dodgers who were in 2nd place? (And the Cardinals didn't have a 2nd place finish until 1963, or 1st until 1964, which suggests that they weren't at their best until a few years after the Reds reached the World Series. Also, can you please provide sources to back up the claim that the Reds were predicted to finish near the bottom?)" I don't believe that you've replied to this or any of my other responses. If you have then please direct me to them. But you can see that I'm not simply dismissing your arguments. Thus I would expect the same in return.Ultimahero (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in my last post I reiterated why I don't accept the fifth source, and you did not reply. I also asked if you were disavowing the other sources since you didn't defend them. Finally, the third source does not really seem to indicate that the two teams have been long standing rivals. It asks why they aren't generally linked, then answers that question. The reason they never had much connection through their early years is explained when the author says this: "But though they supplied many Hall of Famers along the way, the Reds — how to put this delicately — have for the most part stunk." The author then explains that they were in different divisions for a long time. So the author never really seems to indicate that the teams had a standout rivalry from their history.Ultimahero (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, also, the opening line of the third source says this: "The weekend series notwithstanding, the Cardinals have said goodbye to their old rivals in Chicago and Houston and are engaging a new one in the Cincinnati Reds." So it specifically refers to the Reds as a "new" rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise involving MLB Rivalry page
It seems the delete side feels there are not enough reliable sources to warrant the rivalry to have its own article besides the recent events. However, there are plenty of sources talking about the rivalry as it is today. I agree with the delete side that the rivalry today alone does not warrant an article as that is a violation of Recentism. I voted keep initially because of the heated playoff races in the 60's. Some on the delete side feel that this should not be even mentioned on the MLB Rivalry page. With all due respect to my fellow editors, I simply cannot agree with that notion at all. The rivalry IS notable today and multiple RS show not only that, but even go as far to call it THE rivalry of today. If we included this on the MLB Rivalry page in it's own section, condensed the current article as it is as per WP:WEIGHT, I would agree to that and think it is a fair compromise based on WP standards due to notability and the RS that talk about the notability of the rivalry as it is today. Adding a caveat with "Recently, the Reds and Cardinals have developed what pundits X, Y and Z call the best rivalry in baseball." I do not see how not having a paragraph in the page is unreasonable. Arnabdas (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that you're basing this supposed "notability" off of the recent competition between these two teams. (You even suggest adding the caveat "recently.) So, it would seem that you do not consider any of the other information (1964, the fight in 1967, etc.) to be sagas in a long-going rivalry. Thus, if you are basing everything off of what has happened recently, then are you suggesting that one competitive season is enough to make a rivalry. If that's what you're saying, then should there also be mentions of Rays/Yankees, Giants/Padres, and Dodgers/Rockies? These are all division opponents that had close seasons from the last two years. Does every duo with one close season deserve mention? Does one close season create a rivalry? In my belief there's no way that a single year can constitute a true rivalry. To give mention to one season of work is blatantly in violation of Wikipedia's Recentism policy. If either the Cardinals or Reds fade in 2011 will the section be removed from the MLB Rivalries page? The simple fact of the matter is that it's far too early to call this a rivalry. And while I don't doubt that some have prematurely jumped to that conclusion (although I note that you still failed to provide any sources for such an assertion) it doesn't mean that they are correct to do so.Ultimahero (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent what I said. I am saying that the rivalry was RENEWED now, but can understand the opposition to it warranting its own article. The rivalry existed before and 64 and 67 represent that. I don't understand your ardent opposition to a couple of lines being inserted in the main article saying something along the lines of "the Reds an Cardinals have been noted to renew their rivalry recently." The actual statement can be debated by all means, but I do not understand your refusal to include one paragraph that is sourced reliably. Arnabdas (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not misrepresenting what you said. Notice that I SPECIFICALLY said, "You SEEM to be saying" and "IF you are basing...". Please read my comments more carefully. Above you did call it a renewal, but just here you suggested calling it "recent". Specifically, you suggested we write, "Recently, the Reds and Cardinals have developed what pundits X, Y and Z call the best rivalry in baseball." So your focus would be on the recent present, not the past. You mention nothing about the teams renewing the rivalry, at least not in this section. Furthermore, a development is substantially different than a renewal. That's why I was confused. Either the teams had a rivalry in the past and such info deserves mention, or they didn't have a rivalry in the past and thus it would not be mentioned. You seem to be suggesting that, yes indeed, they had a true rivalry before but we don't have to talk about that part. But that makes no sense to me. We can't focus on just one season or else we are violating the recentism policy. And I oppose a paragraph on the rivalry because I don't feel that one actually has existed throughout their history. That's what you must substantiate, with sources, before we can "compromise" on including it.Ultimahero (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indrian, the policy violation is regarding a separate article, not the topic itself. So my compromise is to include it in the general MLB rivalry page. The rivalry is of note and I stand by that due to the numerous sources I have found. However, a separate article would in fact be of recentism because almost all of the sources are about the current rivalry.
 * While I appreciate your desire for compromise, it really does not seem necessary here. A policy argument has been made and the vast majority appear to find it valid.  A compromise is what is needed when there is a more even split in views.  Consensus seems to be that this article violates policy, and your compromise would not really cure that violation. Furthermore, you have not provided any of these numerous sources calling it the rivalry of today. Indrian (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know you expected me to actually publish those sources here, but since you mentioned it: http://digitalsportsdaily.com/mlb/2807-reds-cardinals-rivalry-heating-up.html http://bleacherreport.com/articles/433691-brandon-phillips-brawl-great-for-cardinalsreds-rivalry-baseball http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_2b61fe77-0037-5cad-beff-cd067789a33c.html http://thecincinnatiman.com/baseball-brawl-reds-cardinals-duke-it-out-tcm-is-there/ http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_0b189910-29da-5088-8539-17a18615fba2.html http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=5454489&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb%2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d5454489 http://www.101espn.com/category/csaunders-blogs/20100810/Welcome-to-the-Cardinals~Reds-rivalry!/ http://www.stlsports.org/pressbox/2010_Arch_Rivalry_Cardinals_Double_Play_Package_8_19_10.php http://www.journal-news.com/hamilton-sports/cincinnati-reds/did-bronson-arroyo-cheat-cardinals-say-he-did-326832.html http://www.mancavesports.org/walk-off-wrap-brandon-phillips-starts-a-rivalry-with-words%E2%80%A6really-mean-words/ http://www.scoresreport.com/2010/08/10/brandon-phillips%E2%80%99-comments-about-the-cardinals-refreshing/ http://www.shelbystar.com/articles/rivalries-48929-sports-seasons.html http://sullybaseball.blogspot.com/2010/09/cardinals-vs-reds-could-be-rivalry-of.html Arnabdas (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When teams exist as long as the Reds and Cardinals, it is inevitable that there will be brief periods when the two teams will be in close races, and/or see heated games. That this has happened, and may have recently happened is (I think) not a contention for debate.  At issue:  does all of this constitute a rivalry?  The only way to demonstrate this is with multiple reliable sources, and the burden of proof for that, IMO, has not been met.  Contrast this to the relationship between the Dodgers-Giants .... which have been in near continuous rivalry for the better part of 125 years ... or the White Sox and Cubs, which have a realtively unique rivalry in that they rarely played each other ... and had more of a fan rivalry. It seems that the relationship between the Reds and Cardinals sees occasional times when they are in heated contests ... but nothing  that meets the level of "notable rivalry".LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My recently provided sources will support Arnabdas' claims. And if all "worthy" rivalries have a page, what is the point of the MLB rivalries page? Unless, of course, it would be to provide some information on less prominent rivalries than the "big ones" that are the delete side's basis for why Reds-Cardinals is not a rivalry (violation of Other Stuff Exists). BeenChanged (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the point of the MLB Rivalries page is not to provide info on "less prominent rivalries". The MLB Rivalries page serves as a hub for all other relevant rivalries. If a rivalry is deemed significant to have a page, it's mentioned on the MLB Rivalries page. Obviously that page would be ridiculously long if we tried to put all the information of all the rivalries there. So each rivalry gets a small section, usually just a paragraph, and a link the bigger article. But a rivalry must be important enough to warrant it's own page to be included on the MLB Rivalries page and vice versa.Ultimahero (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. You've got a fair amount of blogs on that list, but not all blogs are reliable sources. 2. Those all appear to be discussing the situation from LAST YEAR... not a LONG-STANDING rivalry between the two teams. Again, WP:RECENT/WP:CRYSTAL applies. umrguy  42  14:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before umrguy, how does that not warrant a couple of sentences in the MLB rivalry article as a mention? As for your comments on blogs, most of those blogs are well known ones that are popular and thus for Wikipedia purposes meet WP:RS. Arnabdas (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Popular" does not necessarily equal "reliable". More importantly, you haven't addressed my second point - all they are really good for is discussing LAST YEAR's events - not a historic rivalry as a whole, violating WP:RECENT. Many speculate that it will lead to a new rivalry, but that violates WP:CRYSTAL. And taking last year's fracas, and combining with past things, violates WP:SYNTH, or at best, is violating WP:ONESOURCE with the WSJ article. umrguy 42  17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well all of those sources are reliable as per Wikipedia so that discussion is moot. I did address your 2nd point. I already changed my choice from "Keep" to "Merge" since I do agree with you that 1 year is not enough to warrant it's own article. However, stating specifically something along the lines of "recently, a rivalry between the Reds and Cardinals has re-ignited from their peak in the 60's due to these fights in 2010" does not violate anything at all. It in fact, calls for a notable mention in the article itself because the topic IS notable. Arnabdas (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You continue to assume your conclusion. You're saying, "See? 2010 re-ignited this rivalry from the '60's!" But those of us in favor of deletion are not sure such a rivalry ever did exist in the 1960's. You must prove that it did, through reliable sources.Ultimahero (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, other than the WSJ article, has there been any other source that establishes an actual rivalry in the 60s? Saying "well, they were both good, and there was the thing in 1964, and the fight in '67, and they've played each other for over 100 years" doesn't establish it. We need sources that say "Cards and Reds have had a rivalry going back to the '60s (or before)". And to be honest, I'm not sure you're really going to find that - I wager most St. Louis fans don't see it as a "rivalry" in the "notable" sense of the term (i.e., on par with Cards-Cubs, Yanks-Sox, Dodgers-Giants), which makes it really tough to be that notable. But this is getting us nowhere - my final (repeated) comment - as it stands, the article is a mess (even though it's well-written) of synthesized WP:ONESOURCE material with WP:UNDUE weight on WP:RECENT events, trying to argue that it has the potential to develop into a nice rivalry (for how long?)  umrguy  42  20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The first three sources were also given by BeenChanged above, and I pointed out to him that they all focus on the present. Four and five also only focus on the recent. Six is not an acceptable source because it links to ESPN's insider section, which requires payment and subscription to view, so the majority of Wikipedians couldn't even open it. Seven is recent. Eight is not about Cards/Reds specifically but rather about some festival called "Arch rivalry festivities" explaining how much tickets cost to interested fans, with a Reds/Cardinals game on the agenda. Nine, ten, eleven, and twelve are all about recent events. Finally, thirteen is the blog projecting what the rivalry MIGHT BE. So I don't think any of these sources are acceptable because none of them substantiate what the rivalry is about.

Also, it appears that what the "keep " side (or "merge" side) is doing is simply going to google and searching for "reds/cardinals rivalry" and then putting the links here without even checking what they're about. If that's not what you're doing then I apologize but it sure looks that way. Specifically, source number eight leads me to believe this. If you were reading the sources before posting them then I don't see how you could possibly think this was relevant. Again, if I'm wrong then tell me, but I think you need to explain what you believed this source offered if you were really reading it.

Finally, I don't think it's fair for the "Keep" side to put a bunch of links and expect the "delete" side to sift through them all. It's the responsibility of the "keep" side to go through the sources and pull out all relevant info. I'm not saying I still wouldn't check the sources myself, but I shouldn't be obligated to do so.Ultimahero (talk) 20:53, 15 April 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.