314:
need to redir to sections like that one, or to sections at articles on the individual teams. Even where there's lots of quick-mention coverage that a "rivalry" (whatever that really means) exists, that doesn't make it a stand-alone enyclopedic topic unless the source material is in-depth about the rivalry as a thing unto itself rather than just as a routine aspect of team coverage. As the entire nature sports is competition, "rivalry" seems just an intrinstic quality of a team's relationship to another team it may compete against.
345:
The nj.com article verges on damning, as it is about a much looser sense of "rivalry", and opens with "When
Interleague play was adopted by Major League Baseball in 1997, it was done partially with an eye towards building rivalries between nearby teams in separate leagues." But obviously this sort of
357:
A tiny kansascity.sbnation.com piece that says there is a rivalry "much like brothers fighting ... for the annual bragging rights in the state of
Missouri", which is to say they're just in a vague competition to be more popular with the home-state baseball fanbase. Well, sure; major-league sports is
313:
per nom seems reasonable, if there's enough source material to support that section at the other article (probably delete if not). "Two teams have played against each other a lot" doesn't amount to a "rivalry" in some encyclopedic sense, and I have a strong suspicion that other articles of this sort
390:
This was weakly kept twice, on the presumption of improvement, but it hasn't happened and looks unlikely to ever happen. Given the enormous popularity of MLB stuff as a subject, this tells me that the reason is that this isn't improvable. If there were not a redirect target for this, I am confident
335:
PS: Been over the previous nominations. Some stand-out comments: "Every local newspaper will mention any team playing each other as a rivalry", "facing each other in the World Series is not a rivalry", "Columnists needing to find something to write about does not make this a rivalry". Since the 2nd
380:
Last, a mlb.mlb.com piece mentions "rivalry" but is about the teams and key players and managers and schedules and stats, not about rivalry (and also not independent of the subject, since MLB has a fiscal interest in promoting the notion of team rivalries to jack up ticket sales out of a localized
468:
per nom. I'm always an advocate for the main rivalry collection page for these substandard rivalries to exist in. Even if the FANCRUFT exists for the two teams, there isn't enough SIGCOV for its own article. As SMcCandlish pointed out, there are some articles that show something, just don't exist
350:
miles of some other team at all" sense of "rivalry" is of no encyclopedic relevance at all; this is about a marketing ploy to get fans invested more in local games, nothing more. While the article is arguably in some depth about rivalries, in that sense we shouldn't care about, as a concept, the
384:
In fairness, the 2012 version had another link to a galesburg.com article titled "Royals slide past
Cardinals in rivalry game" (which cannot be recovered through Internet Archive), so one other article (at a minor newspaper) at least had the word "rivalry" in
416:
PPS: If you want to see a real sport rivalry, an encyclopedic one, a topic that has a life of its own and massive coverage, and is not just a sports-journalism buzzword tossed in to flavor up routine coverage of a team's players this season, see
91:
86:
228:
365:
piece that, like the nj.com one, is about baseball rivalries in general; Cardinals–Royals is mentioned once in passing, in the same this-is-not-a-discrete-encyclopedia-topic "these are nearby teams in the same sport" sense of
376:
writes a piece about this alleged rivalry; but this is local, self-published/UGC blog material and not independent of the subject (the entire site is "covering MLB with a focus on the St. Louis
Cardinals and the Kansas City
339:, but the sourcing in the interim hasn't much improved. Added were a whole lot of primary-source references (stats, schedules); these are meaningless for notability purposes. Sourcing summary (in top-to-bottom order):
442:
It's certainly a good comparison, especially when a primary source acknowledges its existence. Plus, this rivalry is a C-class, so it stands to reason that rivalry pages don't need to be perfect, but outside of
81:
272:
304:
222:
185:
501:
478:
330:
418:
292:
288:
158:
153:
284:
162:
145:
117:
351:
coverage of this specific "rivalry" is a trivial mention that actually suggests the two cities are more of a football-town versus base-ball town situation.
132:
456:
437:
411:
65:
280:
243:
210:
369:
Next, stlouis.cbslocal.com mentions the word "rivals" but then writes an article entirely about players and their stats, not about rivalry.
259:
This doesn't appear to really be a significant rivalry, as evidenced by a lack of significant coverage. Perhaps this can be redirected to
149:
112:
105:
17:
432:
406:
325:
204:
486:
per nom and source analysis by SMcCandlish. Willing to reconsider if additional sources are made available, so please ping me.
260:
53:
200:
126:
122:
141:
71:
250:
518:
342:
The cbssport.com article is about Royals and their gameplay; it mentions the word "rivalry" but is not about a rivalry.
40:
189:
216:
494:
514:
429:
403:
322:
36:
300:
268:
236:
354:
And that's it for cited sources that aren't primary. Dumped in "External links" are the following:
444:
489:
474:
452:
101:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
513:
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
424:
398:
317:
61:
261:
Major League
Baseball rivalries#Show-Me Series: St. Louis Cardinals vs. Kansas City Royals
54:
Major League
Baseball rivalries#Show-Me Series: St. Louis Cardinals vs. Kansas City Royals
296:
264:
470:
448:
179:
57:
336:
nomination in 2012, the article has been twiddled around with a whole lot
509:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
92:
Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (3rd nomination)
87:
Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (2nd nomination)
395:, as it probably should have been the first two times.
337:
175:
171:
167:
235:
249:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
521:). No further edits should be made to this page.
279:Note: This discussion has been included in the
82:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry
419:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry
8:
133:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
278:
358:a business, and there's money to be made.
79:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
381:variant of the "patriotism" urge).
24:
283:lists for the following topics:
118:Introduction to deletion process
1:
422:
396:
315:
66:02:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
502:13:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
479:22:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
457:22:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
438:18:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
412:18:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
331:17:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
305:17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
273:17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
391:that the decision would be
108:(AfD)? Read these primers!
538:
511:Please do not modify it.
142:Cardinals–Royals rivalry
72:Cardinals–Royals rivalry
32:Please do not modify it.
77:AfDs for this article:
190:edits since nomination
447:, need to cover GNG.
346:"this team is within
106:Articles for deletion
307:
123:Guide to deletion
113:How to contribute
529:
500:
497:
492:
436:
410:
372:i70baseball.com
329:
281:deletion sorting
254:
253:
239:
183:
165:
103:
34:
537:
536:
532:
531:
530:
528:
527:
526:
525:
519:deletion review
495:
490:
487:
349:
196:
156:
140:
137:
100:
97:
96:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
535:
533:
524:
523:
505:
504:
481:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
414:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
375:
370:
367:
359:
355:
352:
347:
343:
308:
257:
256:
193:
136:
135:
130:
120:
115:
98:
95:
94:
89:
84:
78:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
534:
522:
520:
516:
512:
507:
506:
503:
499:
498:
493:
485:
484:Weak redirect
482:
480:
476:
472:
467:
464:
458:
454:
450:
446:
441:
440:
439:
434:
431:
428:
427:
420:
415:
413:
408:
405:
402:
401:
394:
389:
383:
379:
373:
371:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
344:
341:
340:
338:
334:
333:
332:
327:
324:
321:
320:
312:
309:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
277:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
252:
248:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
202:
199:
198:Find sources:
194:
191:
187:
181:
177:
173:
169:
164:
160:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
134:
131:
128:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
107:
102:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
510:
508:
488:
483:
465:
425:
399:
392:
362:
318:
310:
258:
246:
240:
232:
225:
219:
213:
207:
197:
99:
49:
47:
31:
28:
426:SMcCandlish
400:SMcCandlish
361:Next is an
319:SMcCandlish
223:free images
515:talk page
469:anymore.
377:Royals").
366:"rivals".
37:talk page
517:or in a
466:Redirect
445:WP:LOCAL
311:Redirect
297:Let'srun
293:Missouri
289:Baseball
265:Let'srun
186:View log
127:glossary
50:redirect
39:or in a
471:Conyo14
449:Conyo14
374:finally
363:NYTimes
291:, and
229:WP refs
217:scholar
159:protect
154:history
104:New to
496:Anchor
393:delete
285:Sports
201:Google
163:delete
58:Daniel
491:Frank
244:JSTOR
205:books
180:views
172:watch
168:links
52: to
16:<
475:talk
453:talk
301:talk
269:talk
237:FENS
211:news
176:logs
150:talk
146:edit
62:talk
435:😼
409:😼
385:it.
328:😼
251:TWL
184:– (
477:)
455:)
423:—
421:.
397:—
316:—
303:)
295:.
287:,
271:)
263:.
231:)
188:|
178:|
174:|
170:|
166:|
161:|
157:|
152:|
148:|
64:)
56:.
473:(
451:(
433:¢
430:☏
407:¢
404:☏
348:X
326:¢
323:☏
299:(
267:(
255:)
247:·
241:·
233:·
226:·
220:·
214:·
208:·
203:(
195:(
192:)
182:)
144:(
129:)
125:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.