713:
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
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
52:. 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.
304:- 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 Knowledge (XXG). Admittedly, it would be useful if other people would contribute as well. Furthermore, I have not seen Knowledge (XXG)' policy on "compelling" sources, only
804:
problems are not. I don't edit
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
654:. 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.
798:
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.
786:
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
567:
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
609:
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
225:
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
730:
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
663:
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,
712:
I honestly wish I could make a steadfast commitment to improving the article myself. Knowledge (XXG) 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
803:
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
757:
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
776:
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
587:
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
582:
Maybe for people who do nothing but hang around editing
Knowledge (XXG) 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
777:
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
Knowledge (XXG) standards across articles that fall into the same broad categories. Something like
781:
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
308:, which consensus determined were sufficiently identified only a month ago. This renomination is premature. There are many stub articles on Knowledge (XXG) that are given time to grow. If you delete this article then you should also nominate
90:
85:
684:
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
190:
413:
820:
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.
697:
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
372:
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.
649:
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
80:
731:
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
799:
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
184:
150:
588:
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.
668:
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.
279:
498:.. 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.
145:
118:
113:
548:. 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)
122:
689:'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
552:
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. --
105:
762:
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.—
244:
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. –
844:
830:
813:
771:
748:
722:
707:
658:
633:
619:
597:
577:
562:
536:
507:
484:
475:
461:
447:
433:
396:
382:
362:
325:
293:
270:
253:
235:
63:
835:
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. –
800:
305:
205:
172:
795:, 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.
624:
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. –
316:
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.
109:
17:
166:
346:
787:
a much clearer standard for junior editors such as myself. So far the only
Knowledge (XXG) policy I've seen on this subject is
162:
101:
69:
212:
875:
40:
753:
While it is understandably difficult sometimes, please try not to take the discussion of the article personally.
736:
727:
783:
261:- For the same reasons as in the last AfD just a few weeks ago. I don't think anything has changed since then.
651:
178:
754:
559:
452:
I'm a diehard Royals fan and I can attest to the fact that there is nothing prominent about this rivalry.
871:
778:
532:
36:
788:
417:
409:
387:
No problem, it happens. But if that's the case perhaps you should just consider withdrawing the AfD.
222:
826:
809:
744:
718:
673:
615:
593:
549:
503:
392:
342:
321:
58:
198:
759:
758:
month?) for identifying additional sources, with the understanding that there is no prejudice for
517:
840:
629:
573:
471:
443:
249:
767:
703:
554:
438:
I personally don't see this as "prominent". That's apparently the minority opinion, though. –
429:
358:
313:
289:
266:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
870:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
528:
457:
378:
231:
694:
686:
664:
the latter point seems to be notable enough to sustain other interleague rivalries such as
421:
350:
822:
805:
740:
714:
669:
611:
589:
499:
388:
338:
317:
53:
836:
732:
665:
625:
606:
602:
584:
569:
467:
439:
309:
245:
763:
699:
425:
354:
285:
262:
139:
739:
and other baseball "rivalries" of that nature to also end up in the cross-hairs.
792:
655:
481:
453:
374:
227:
520:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
414:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alabama–Penn State football rivalry
864:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
91:
Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (3rd nomination)
86:
Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (2nd nomination)
349:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
690:
135:
131:
127:
197:
605:, looking through the history of the aforementioned
527:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
466:Perhaps it's not the minority opinion after all. –
211:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
878:). No further edits should be made to this page.
691:tagged with not meeting GNG since November 2011
480:@Bearian what is your opinion of "prominent".
221:This honestly isn't a very major rivalry (and
81:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry
280:list of Baseball-related deletion discussions
8:
278:Note: This debate has been included in the
277:
78:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
76:
424:, and I think this fits the bill.
24:
1:
895:
652:independent of the rivalry
448:17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
434:17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
408:per Tempdog, and based on
326:04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
294:18:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
271:18:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
254:21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
236:20:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
867:Please do not modify it.
784:Phillies-Pirates rivalry
226:becoming rather stale).
102:Cardinals–Royals rivalry
70:Cardinals–Royals rivalry
64:15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
845:22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
831:22:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
814:22:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
772:00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
755:Other stuff might exist
749:00:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
723:23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
708:14:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
659:20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
634:01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
620:23:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
598:23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
578:17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
563:01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
537:00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
508:13:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
485:20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
476:17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
462:06:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
397:16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
383:06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
363:22:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
75:AfDs for this article:
779:Mets-Phillies rivalry
610:is being drawn here.
335:Note to closing admin
737:Brewers–Cubs_rivalry
728:Brewers–Cubs_rivalry
550:Mets-Yankees rivalry
418:prominent rivalries
48:The result was
539:
365:
314:Bay Bridge Series
296:
283:
886:
869:
801:reliable sources
557:
526:
522:
332:
306:reliable sources
284:
216:
215:
201:
153:
143:
125:
61:
56:
34:
894:
893:
889:
888:
887:
885:
884:
883:
882:
876:deletion review
865:
791:cited above by
555:
515:
158:
149:
116:
100:
97:
95:
73:
60:| confabulate _
59:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
892:
890:
881:
880:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
833:
796:
679:
678:
677:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
542:
541:
540:
524:
523:
512:
511:
510:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
478:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
367:
366:
329:
328:
298:
297:
274:
273:
256:
219:
218:
155:
96:
94:
93:
88:
83:
77:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
891:
879:
877:
873:
868:
862:
861:
846:
842:
838:
834:
832:
828:
824:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
802:
797:
794:
790:
785:
780:
775:
774:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:Citrus Series
729:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
696:
692:
688:
683:
680:
675:
671:
667:
666:Citrus Series
662:
661:
660:
657:
653:
648:
645:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
608:
607:Citrus Series
604:
601:
600:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:Citrus Series
581:
580:
579:
575:
571:
566:
565:
564:
561:
560:
558:
551:
547:
544:
543:
538:
534:
530:
525:
521:
519:
514:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
486:
483:
479:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
410:past outcomes
407:
404:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
371:
370:
369:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:Citrus Series
307:
303:
300:
299:
295:
291:
287:
281:
276:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
224:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:Find sources:
156:
152:
147:
141:
137:
133:
129:
124:
120:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
866:
863:
760:userfication
698:sufficient?—
681:
646:
553:
546:Withdraw AfD
545:
516:
495:
420:are usually
405:
334:
301:
258:
241:
220:
208:
202:
194:
187:
181:
175:
169:
159:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
789:WP:NRIVALRY
529:Ron Ritzman
223:WP:NRIVALRY
185:free images
55:‑Scottywong
823:Spanneraol
806:TempDog123
741:TempDog123
715:TempDog123
695:good faith
670:TempDog123
612:TempDog123
590:TempDog123
556:NINTENDUDE
500:Spanneraol
389:TempDog123
339:TempDog123
318:TempDog123
872:talk page
286:• Gene93k
37:talk page
874:or in a
837:Muboshgu
626:Muboshgu
603:Muboshgu
570:Muboshgu
518:Relisted
468:Muboshgu
440:Muboshgu
412:such as
347:contribs
246:Muboshgu
146:View log
39:or in a
764:Bagumba
700:Bagumba
682:Comment
426:Bearian
422:notable
355:Bagumba
263:Rlendog
191:WP refs
179:scholar
119:protect
114:history
793:Kansan
693:. My
687:WP:GNG
656:Secret
647:Delete
568:so. –
496:Delete
482:Secret
454:Kansan
375:Kansan
242:Delete
228:Kansan
163:Google
123:delete
206:JSTOR
167:books
151:Stats
140:views
132:watch
128:links
16:<
841:talk
827:talk
810:talk
768:talk
745:talk
735:and
719:talk
704:talk
674:talk
630:talk
616:talk
594:talk
574:talk
533:talk
504:talk
472:talk
458:talk
444:talk
430:talk
406:Keep
393:talk
379:talk
359:talk
343:talk
322:talk
312:and
302:Keep
290:talk
267:talk
259:Keep
250:talk
232:talk
199:FENS
173:news
136:logs
110:talk
106:edit
353:. —
351:XfD
213:TWL
148:•
144:– (
843:)
829:)
812:)
770:)
747:)
721:)
706:)
632:)
618:)
596:)
576:)
535:)
506:)
474:)
460:)
446:)
432:)
416:-
395:)
381:)
361:)
345:•
337::
333:—
324:)
292:)
282:.
269:)
252:)
234:)
193:)
138:|
134:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
839:(
825:(
808:(
766:(
743:(
717:(
702:(
676:)
672:(
628:(
614:(
592:(
572:(
531:(
502:(
470:(
456:(
442:(
428:(
391:(
377:(
357:(
341:(
320:(
288:(
265:(
248:(
230:(
217:)
209:·
203:·
195:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
165:(
157:(
154:)
142:)
104:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.