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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orioles-Pirates rivalry

[edit]
Orioles-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Braves-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pirates-Reds rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cubs-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brewers-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cardinals-Pirates rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New rivalry articles where there may be no rivalry to speak of. Rather than CSD or PROD these brand new articles, I feel we should all have a talk. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Hholt01 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the links, at least academically and I did read about 75% of each (bottoms up for the sake of time). Being that all of these go back to the 1870s-1880s to some degree I would tend to agree on the face of Jays-Tigers/Twins-Yankees. Maybe you could clarify that in the Spring of 1986 the same logic in your first link could be used to delete Yankees/Redsox, after all Philadelphia and Baltimore are much closer geographically, Baltimore in the same division with much more recent championships then Boston. The final two links are more justifications of the "since the 1980's" or "since yesterday, only one playoff series" etc. Apples and oranges with all of my additions save possibly for Milwaukee, which ironically enough is the most contemporary one that instills boiling blood on both sides (an arrest, assault, ejection, threats of lawsuits, and thats just the first 20 years). Again the closest geographic team that threated championships for the Pirates is Baltimore and vice versa (except for that lone 1983 embarrassment with the Phillies), both geographically and statistically (both decisive 7th games, one series the last 1-3 comeback in sports, etc. etc.) Hholt01 (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put a NPOV link to this discussion on the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia wikiproject discussions. Also I get the feeling that some posters have seemingly gotten fatigued from all the Rays-Yankees, Tigers-Jays etc. etc. article starts, however I also feel that a few posters here are stating ad homeniems that may very well be justified from seeing one "invented" or a couple year old "rivalry" articles pop up, but there is yet to be any rebuttal or counter to the facts listed in these articles (not that those alone would justify deletion/merger but it would be a start). Each rivalry is obviously extremely unique. To lump in a freshly minted Orioles-Pirates with an ill-conceived Twins-Yankees exposes that not much reading of the articles is taking place. I did spend some hours learning about the rich texture and fabric of Cubs-Cardinals, Yankees-Redsox, and to my amazement some of what is included or justifying them I intentionally left out of these articles as weak/irrelevant or circumstantial to the teams, cities and fanbases, things such as managers being loosely connected decades ago on the other coast for the other league (how does that make New Yorkers envious/disagreeable of Bostonians again?) and radio stations fighting over a county in southern Illinois somehow fuels never contenting for a title Cubs vs. Cardinals (is it a rivalry when your "rival" hasn't won nor competed in a World Series since before World War I, what exactly are you rivaling with them for, 3rd place?). I do see tons of citations which I would love to fill with these pages, but mostly they just link to more of the same trivia that is interesting but not really directly fueling the flames of rival players or fanbases. I would encourage anyone that truly feels these articles are less than worthy to read them and join me in adding citations if you wish. For as much history and contention I have added I know there is tons more. If my intent was to throw up a Rays-Yankees type "rivalry" that was a flash in the pan type thing I would have included about twice as many lesser ones, my intent is factual encyclopedic articles. Interested in any factual thing that I might be missing though and appreciate your expertise. Hholt01 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rivalry is something that is tested through time and really affects the fanbases... the Pirates fans would be exhausted by all these rivalries. How exactly are the Pirates and Braves rivals? Just cause they met in two NLCS? That article is factualy inaccurate anyway because it says the first meeting was in the International League in 1877, when the Braves (then called the Red Caps) were in the National League that season, and had been playing professionally since long before then so it certainly wasn't "their first professional game"). The article about the Cubs rivalry doesnt even explain how they are rivals, just lists details that happened in various games, none of which would lead to a rivalry. Just cause two teams play a lot doesnt make them rivals... I could go on but simply put these articles dont need to exist. Spanneraol (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atlanta Fixed (it would help if that franchise could decide where it wanted to be, besides the Hitting for the Cycle article on wiki is factually inaccurate with the same single date issue [1] you are proposing deletion for it as well?). As for your other non-fact based ad homeniems, the "details that happened in various games" just happen to be world, MLB or NL records, or events that most fans of most teams would be more than lucky to witness in their lifetimes (hitting for the cycle, hall of fame broadcaster's last game etc.). You contradict yourself with the Cubs and Braves, "just cause they met in two NLCS" (you meant to say two 7 game 9th inning decision, razor wire close NLCS's with one team knowingly facing rebuilding and one coming from worst to first and the decision on the last 7 game 9th inning being decided by a Pittsburgh native Brave who was an ex-Pirate ah, rivalries are made of these!) anyway you state "only" for the Braves NLCS then attack the "lists" on the Cubs, both articles have the same lists of world, MLB or NL firsts. There is nothing "only" about the Braves. Hholt01 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was.. what makes these rivalries lasting events other than just something that lasts a year or two and can be covered in the relevant season articles. Most of your articles do not say why these should be considered rivalries and your listing of facts that occurred in these games doesnt say why these events add up to any sort of lasting rivalry. Spanneraol (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without one fact to back up this statement I'm tempted to say your post violates these same things and that most wikiarticles violate these especially when only 48 hours old. 95% of all these so-called "violations" are pulled from Wiki's own articles on hitting for the cycle, ballparks, Baseball Hall of Fame, MLB records etc. Does that count as an external citation, No, but by your logic there are dozens of baseball related wiki articles now up for deletion? If your concern is GNG, Routine and Independent then fix your concern with articles that are 48 hours old, your concerns defeat the entire purpose of Wikipedia which is that NO article is complete, every one is up for constructive editing months and even years later. The goal here is not to pass each and every wiki test in the first 48 or 72 hours of article building, its to collectively and constructively improve them over months and years. There are baseball articles on this site that don't pass your concerns after being up for 72 months, is "delete all" their destination as well? The 1959 Harvey Haddix game for instance is referenced on around a dozen other wikipages, if we all followed your advice it would be time for wiki style book burning? Please excuse my hyperbole but when you make a statement with no facts at all that several wikipolicies are being violated on 48 hour old articles, um seriously what 48 hour old wikiarticle ever passed all those in the history of this place, and if that's the standard why have edit buttons on articles that can't go live without already being perfect? Hholt01 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply asking for more time does not address the concern that there is no proof of notability of these subjects. Nobody expects the article to be perfect, but it does need to demonstrate notability. If you are not ready to have your work scrutinized, you can consider developing this on your own user page before adding it to the mainspace. Please assume good faith that participants are looking for sources, but remember that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. —Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has asked for more time, please assume good faith on my side as well :-). The only editors who are requesting things what will take more time (thus asking for it) all wish to delete, so to negate those justifications for deletion is changing your vote? (just asking) Also it isn't a great thing to bundle articles that have one team in particular in common and use the same broad brush (comparing to a Yankees-Rays non-rivalry) to justify all of their deletions as if they were exactly identical, and then have editors complaining how "tired" this is? I always assume good faith, until the facts or lack there of prove otherwise, it is a two way street (if you want to complain that encyclopedic information or effort makes you tired, or you fail to distinguish between two separate rivalries maybe wiki isn't the place for you) Not addressing you in particular here but just general sentiments. Love to get back to the good faith road of analyzing the facts of each article individually without abstract "feelings" coming into play, I will be most happy to start down that new road.Hholt01 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't assert the "presence" what exactly is the problem? If you are against lists in wiki sports articles there are about 500 up for deletion, tons in the baseball section alone. Hholt01 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious to me that you aren't being reasonable about these articles. You also obviously don't understand the concept of a rivalry, or perhaps don't have a firm grasp on certain basic Wikipedia concepts, or (more likely) both. I will leave it to others to continue belaboring the points. -Dewelar (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the notation, and would welcome any more facts either here or on the articles. Hholt01 (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For notability and deletion I scanned what possibly you all could be referring to since aside from the Atlanta date no one will give specifics, this is what I found as far as "notability" on other rivalry articles, Giants-Yankees more than 2 months after being created and after a deletion proposal was defeated more than a month prior . . . sad, really sad and then more than a year later, Giants-Yankees has still not cited sources (in fact not one single solitary source either on wikipedia or off, and has warnings that it doesn't meet wikipedia quality standards. No one has asked for more time (except the "delete all" votes have basically required it to meet "standards") and the notability of all wikiarticles can always be improved, but to allow other rivalry articles a much much lower standard (I'm sorry it appears no standard was held to some for over a year) smacks as regionalism in the worst sense. I'm not trying to pass off a Rays-Yankees born yesterday bad blood as a long standing rivalry, and you'll never guess the complete lack of anything I found justifying Redsox-Yankees article when they had only competed for a chance at a pennant far fewer times then Braves-Pirates, Reds-Pirates and Orioles-Pirates for years and years, not to mention the slow and cumbersome wikiarticles on other rivalries. My submitted articles after 72 hours are by far better cited for notability than all baseball rivalry articles on wikipedia after more than a month-sometimes a year, and notability is defined on the rivalry page as the history of competition between fans, players and teams thus the so-called "trivia" content more than satisfies notability for any "year old" wiki rivalry article. Is there a lot more needed, yes, and I have been growing them addressing the "notability" as has been pointed out by the editors here. Thank you for your consideration. Hholt01 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles dont explain why these would be considered rivalries. All it has is a collection of events that happened in games between these teams, but nothing anywhere that explains a rivalry. Plenty of articles exist that discuss long standing yankees-red sox rivalry and how it affects the fanbase... How exactly are the Pirates and Orioles rivals? They met a couple of times in the World Series in the 70s.. but that doesnt make them rivals... by the way, the team from the 19th century is not the same Orioles team as the current one, a fact not made clear in the article. The Reds, Cubs, Brewers, Cards are all in the same division but that doesnt create any longstanding rivalry... None of these articles explain why these meetings should be considered rivalries. Spanneraol (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the off-chance that these articles survive the deletion process, I have updated the Orioles-Pirates article to eliminate mentions of the 19th century Orioles. I also removed a couple of broken links. -Dewelar (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles here are so far original research about a rivalry built upon piecemeal facts about games between the two teams. What we need are multiple, non-routine coverage from independent, reliable sources that talk about the rivalry. Then, what looks now like trivia will instead be deemed notable in the context of a notable rivalry. Please note that other stuff exists is not a strong argument to keep. The argument is even weaker in your comparison to to the Yankees – Red Sox rivalry, which cites entire books devoted to the subject. —Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, however "rivalry" even defined by Wiki is abstract, I have however added more external links and will continue to do so for these articles. Please don't misunderstand I am not using other stuff exists as a crutch but when you get multiple editors speaking about abstract concepts that frankly would be considered very different 1,000 miles away all you really have to go on is other stuff exists to try and comprehend what type of article and notability you are requiring. The biggest observation with all of those is that to compare these articles (each very unique and different so the "___ all" as a vote is a stretch) . . . to compare these articles apples to apples, I am seeing they are much more cited and mature in a notability sense than any other 72 hour old rivalry article, again not an excuse but you are trying to make me see an abstract, sources are coming and notability but there are bars in Ohio and West Virginia that would think you a fool to consider Redsox-Yankees a rivalry, doesn't mean it should be nominated for deletion despite having less citations after a month. I get the basic point and will continue to source notability. Hholt01 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even people in Ohio would consider Yanks/Red Sox a rivalry.. do you really hope to compare Pirates/Orioles to the Yanks/Red Sox or Dodgers/Giants who both have long histories of acrimonious rivalries? The point isnt in sourcing its in prooving any sort of real rivalry exists here rather than just a typical divisional contest.. You could write similar articles about any two teams in the league but they'd get deleted too. Why dont you spend your time on a more worthy endeavor, such as improving the Pirates season articles? Most of the information you're adding here could and should be added to those articles instead. Spanneraol (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your efforts do seem sincere. However, Wikipedia can only document what has been reliably sourced. Even the new external links that have been added talk about a "rival" in the generic sense that would apply to any opponent. Otherwise, the sources discuss a rivalry as it applies to a specific season. As Spanneraol stated, we are looking for evidence of a rivalry beyond a game or a season. This would require sources that each document the rivalry over a longer time span and not multiple sources that only talk about a single season that is used to synthesize a larger-scale rivalry. Without such sources, regardless of how accurate talk in bars may be, you are encouraged to redirect your energy and improve other articles related to the Pirates.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After having read some of the other rivalry articles I will concede that only applying things like LCS or 7 game world series isn't a full definition. I can see how moving a few of these to season or entries on the Pirates and other teams articles might be appropriate. Again though no one has really addressed the fact that these are very different rivalries, I can see for the sake of time bunching them (I bunched them to create) but I would put forth that ones like Reds-Pirates and Cubs-Pirates should stay (I would still vote for everyone save maybe Brewers and possibly O's but I'm on the fence with that given how they competed for titles to the last inning of seven games the same generation and then are competing for the cellar and #1 draft picks another generation). If the consensus is delete I would hope that they are judged individually, especially Reds and Cubs. Cardinals and Braves (back-to-back last out bottom of ninth seven games battles, and bad blood even in 2011 19 inning games) are strong as well. Hholt01 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More