Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankees–Giants 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   snowball keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yankees–Giants rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced rivalry cruft. These two teams have only played 47 games against each other in 110 years, and none of any import in over half a century. Hardly the stuff rivalries are made of to say nothing of having not one reference to back any of the data or assertions put forth in the article. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Real historical rivalry. Bad article needing much work, but that's not reason to put the baby in the blender. Carrite (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – The article as written actually disguises the notability of the topic. Half the page is devoted to meaningless interleague games, and most of the rest is just a laundry list of players. This has some good background information, which is exactly what a rivalry article should contain. I'm going with a weak keep because there's less out there than I expected, but my gut tells me articles are avaliable if you're willing to look hard enough.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 03:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but improve I have been working on this the best I can. I don't know much about it, so I tried to put in what I could to make it better. The rivalry was fierce back then. There was an AFD nomination already for this and most people said to keep it. Feel free to access it from the page's discussion page. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I just added a lot to this thing to make it presentable. Arnabdas (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;this was a fierce rivalry back in the early part of the 20th century, although it tapered off when the Giants moved to San Francisco. This article definitely needs significant amounts of work, but is a worthy subject. –Grondemar 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't have the time to improve this article, but I was gonna give it a shot before voting. I see it's already been improved, though it's probably not finished.  The old version was poor, this version is better, and the subject is notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It now seems to meet the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nothing has changed since the prior deletion discussion for this article, Articles for deletion/Giants yankees rivalry that should have been referenced here, to make the topic less notable. Per the discussion there, this was an extremely notable rivalry, and written about in published sources as such.  Just because most of the notable interaction took place years ago is irrelevant - notability is not temporary.  And whatever one's opinion of such articles, the rivalry between two teams who played multiple World Series while sharing a stadium, then multiple World Series playing in home stadiums about a mile apart, can be considered "cruft". Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason to delete. By this flawed logic, the Subway Series is also "cruft". Don't toss around a word that doesn't apply to a notable article just because you don't like it. Vodello (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow keep.  Per the above keeps. Will someone pls come along and put this AfD out of its misery?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 23 August 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.