445:
Trophy Game is barely hinted at in the article - Steinbrenner used to treat that pretty much second only to the World Series, and without doing the research I am pretty sure at least one Yankee player got cut because of a costly error in that exhibition game. And of course, the newspapers all treated the game with equal seriousness. In the case of Giants-A's, I wouldn't be surprised if there were sources in the early 1910s describing a Giants-Athletics rivalry back then, given the proximity of the cities (and their tendency to look over each others shoulders) and the fact that the teams met in the World Series 3 times in less than 10 years, starting when the AL and NL themselves were virtually at war.
439:- I suppose the various articles (although I don't think the first meets the independence requirements) calling this a rivalry are enough. Barely. It would be much better if they actually described the rivalry in a manner that goes beyond the one World Series they played (lots of teams played one World Series against each other) and their interleague play record (which of course lots of team pairings have). As it is, it is hard to tell if the sources are describing an actual "rivalry" or just using the term for convenience.
449:
day too (there may be some, but they aren't common). Whereas in the Met-Yankee and Cub-White Sox cases, such fans are very common. Really, I don't know any
Cardinals fan who cares more about the Royals than about the Mariners, or any other particular team (I am sure they exist, but I doubt there are many). Nor am I convinced that the I-70 World Series was any more indicative of a rivalry than the I-95 series a few years earlier. That said, given the sources, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
256:, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling by creating the page. I'd hoped others would have jumped in and contributed by now but I see that is not the case! But I'd urge you to give other editors a chance to improve this article because I know it can be sourced. If they don't, then I may take it upon myself to do so, time permitting. Failing both of those, we can revisit the deletion. Thank you!
380:) the respective teams have never even met in the World Series. The Rays and Marlins did not even exist when the Cardinals and Royals met in the 1985 World Series! So, I do not see why this interleague rivalry is being singled out, except that the article is in its infancy and hasn't yet had the time to grow.
409:
I'm disappointed that a week after I've nominated this article for deletion, no changes have been made to the article in an attempt to keep it. Finding a few sources and putting them here is better than nothing, but it doesn't help us to determine just how much credence to give these sources. Are any
352:
and placed in the article or the talk page. That being said, based on the sourced identified in this AfD, there's probably enough sources that at least refer to the interleague series as a "rivalry" to warrant an article. I wouldn't mind this redirecting to a larger MLB interleague rivalry article,
448:
Besides that, having lived in the New York area all my life and been to St. Louis many times, I have yet to meet a
Cardinal fan who feels better about a loss because the Royals lost too, or feel that the only thing that would make a day the Cardinals win better would be if the Royals hadn't won that
444:
The Met-Yankee, Cubs-White Sox and A's-Giants rivalries are hardly comparable. These teams share not just a state, but a city (or municipal area). Each of those pairings involved some element of territorial disputes and/or shared stadium issues. In the Mets-Yankees the significance of the Mayor's
239:
I removed the deletion template. I had created this article a few months ago. The rivalry between the
Cardinals and Royals exists. They share a state, have played a World Series (with a highly controversial call), and play each other in interleague play every year. In other words, they share in
394:
Precisely, I think its an understandable reaction to "single out" this article based on the fact that this rivalry does not get as much press as the ones from bigger cities. Unfortunately, it's sources that determine notability, not whether anything "meaningful" really happened in the
371:
Bear in mind that in the other interleague rivlaries with articles - Mets/Yankees, Cubs/White Sox, A's/Giants - the official games between the two teams are likewise limited to interleague play and one World Series. In the case of certain other interleague rivalries that have articles
88:
83:
252:), all interleague rivalries with articles. There are definitely sources out there to prove it as well, unfortunately I haven't had the time to look for them. This rivalry was mentioned on both respective team pages, and also at
182:
78:
176:
280:
143:
316:
116:
111:
120:
103:
289:
274:
213:
PROD, endorsed by one editor, contested by another. This article provides zero sources to claim the existence of a rivalry. It points primarily to
197:
164:
414:? Editorial comments that don't convey notability? If two respected editors say "weak" keep, that suggests it's still iffy at best. –
107:
17:
458:
423:
404:
389:
362:
302:
265:
230:
61:
283:
158:
52:. Hopefully someone will take the time to actually use those sources to improve the article, or we likely end up back here again.
154:
277:
99:
67:
273:
I'm pressed for time right now, but here's a few links from reputable sources that I found from a quick Google search:
204:
477:
40:
353:
but with the World Series—albeit only one series—there's likely other tidbits floating around about the "rivalry".—
170:
245:
473:
36:
385:
298:
261:
241:
57:
411:
286:
190:
419:
324:
226:
288:. Here's are some from more questionable sources, but that seem current on Missouri baseball:
454:
400:
358:
292:
249:
214:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
472:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
345:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
253:
349:
381:
294:
257:
53:
377:
415:
373:
320:
222:
218:
450:
396:
354:
137:
217:, which the teams competed in, but provides no evidence that this "
466:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
89:
Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (3rd nomination)
84:
Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (2nd nomination)
236:
Copy & paste of what I wrote on the article's talk page:
254:
interleague play#Geographical_matchups_.2F_Natural_Rivals
133:
129:
125:
189:
203:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
480:). No further edits should be made to this page.
348:until enough sources were identified to satify
344:It would be best if articles were developed on
79:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry
317:list of Baseball-related deletion discussions
8:
315:Note: This debate has been included in the
334:
331:
314:
221:" Series has any lasting notability. –
76:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
74:
24:
1:
497:
459:00:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
424:20:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
405:21:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
390:21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
363:21:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
303:19:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
266:18:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
248:, and A's-Giants rivalry (
231:19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
62:20:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
469:Please do not modify it.
100:Cardinals–Royals rivalry
68:Cardinals–Royals rivalry
32:Please do not modify it.
327:) 19:01, 23 March 2012
246:Cubs-White Sox rivalry
240:common the aspects of
73:AfDs for this article:
242:Mets-Yankees rivalry
48:The result was
337:
332:
328:
250:Bay Bridge Series
215:1985 World Series
488:
471:
208:
207:
193:
141:
123:
34:
496:
495:
491:
490:
489:
487:
486:
485:
484:
478:deletion review
467:
150:
114:
98:
95:
93:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
494:
492:
483:
482:
462:
461:
446:
441:
440:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
378:Freeway Series
366:
365:
335:
330:
329:
310:
308:
307:
306:
305:
235:
211:
210:
147:
94:
92:
91:
86:
81:
75:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
493:
481:
479:
475:
470:
464:
463:
460:
456:
452:
447:
443:
442:
438:
435:
434:
425:
421:
417:
413:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:Citrus Series
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
360:
356:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
338:
326:
322:
318:
313:
312:
311:
304:
300:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
237:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:Find sources:
148:
145:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
468:
465:
436:
341:
333:
309:
238:
234:
212:
200:
194:
186:
179:
173:
167:
161:
151:
49:
47:
31:
28:
177:free images
412:WP:ROUTINE
382:TempDog123
346:user pages
295:TempDog123
258:TempDog123
54:Beeblebrox
474:talk page
437:Weak keep
395:rivalry.—
342:Weak keep
50:weak keep
37:talk page
476:or in a
416:Muboshgu
410:of them
321:Muboshgu
223:Muboshgu
144:View log
39:or in a
451:Rlendog
397:Bagumba
355:Bagumba
183:WP refs
171:scholar
117:protect
112:history
350:WP:GNG
155:Google
121:delete
336:(UTC)
198:JSTOR
159:books
138:views
130:watch
126:links
16:<
455:talk
420:talk
401:talk
386:talk
376:and
359:talk
325:talk
319:. –
299:talk
262:talk
227:talk
219:I-70
191:FENS
165:news
134:logs
108:talk
104:edit
58:talk
205:TWL
142:– (
457:)
422:)
403:)
388:)
361:)
301:)
291:,
285:,
282:,
279:,
276:,
264:)
244:,
229:)
185:)
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
60:)
453:(
418:(
399:(
384:(
372:(
357:(
323:(
297:(
260:(
225:(
209:)
201:·
195:·
187:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
157:(
149:(
146:)
140:)
102:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.