Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewers–Cubs 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 keep. The deletion decision on another article does not prejudice this one, supporters of keeping the article have pointed to reliable sources on the existance and notability of rivalry and there is nothing presented to overcome that. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 02:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brewers–Cubs rivalry

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reds–Cardinals rivalry, this article purports to describe a "rivalry" but doesn't demonstrate the existence of said rivalry. They played each other in interleague play for the first time in 1997 and have since been merged to the same division. There is nothing independent of those two facts that establishes this as a "rivalry". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There seems to be a lot more independent sources discussing this I-94 rivalry than there was for the Reds-Cards. The Bleacher Report article already referenced explicitly mentions this rivalry. I found other sources as well, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (and also an examiner.com article, although that site seems to be blacklisted). On that basis (and the bit in the article about Cubs fans invading Miller Field for Cubs-Brewers games, which is currently unreferenced but referred to in a couple of the links I found) I am inclined to believe this rivalry is legitimate and the article should be kept. Rlendog (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reds–Cardinals rivalry is a redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries. Did you suggest this on the talk page of the article? This would assume that there WASN'T any citations to demonstrate notability, and if there was, then a merge would have been more appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually suggested a line be written in the MLB Rivalry article to note the rivalry. I had originally voted keep due to notability, but due to wiki rules about having multiple numerous sources talking about a rivalry I proposed to have it merged. Many of the delete crew argued me to the end about including it in the MLB rivalry article. I still think it should be included there. Arnabdas (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that I voted merge then because of the numerous sources only referring to the current Reds-Cardinals rivalry, thus being of recentism. Brewers-Cubs isn't recent, this one's been going on for a whle. Arnabdas (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the historic competitive relationship of two old franchises like the Reds and the Cardinals is deemed "non-notable," there's no way that this one is. My own view is that AfD got that wrong. So it goes... OTHERSTUFF, I know, but there is something to be said for use of precedent to rapidly solve these matters. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A big difference between the two articles is that this one seems to have a lot more independent sources establishing the existence of an ongoing rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which is a manifestation of the bias towards recentism that is part-and-parcel of information on the internet. I don't have anything against this or any seriously done rivalry articles, mind you — it just strikes me as a rather ridiculous failure of Wikipedia's notablity dogma if a century-old NL rivalry is tossed and a Selig-era pseudo-rivalry is kept. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point I agree with you. But I had difficulty finding anything anywhere suggesting that anyone thought the Reds and Cards had a notable rivalry ever before 2010, even going back to books on 19th century baseball. While this one has plenty of coverage, which makes sense given the proximity of the two teams along a particular highway. Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that many rivalries ARE notable enough. As for this one, I am not a fan and haven't extensively searched them out. But idea of an article about sports rivalries if sourced would seem fine if it is indeed notable enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP After seeing so many comments but no !votes (including my own lack thereof), I decided to do some real searching on this particular rivalry (using the term without the - mark or quote) and found [6] [7] [8] which would indicate to me that the RIVALRY itself, between these two teams, is indeed notable, documented and would be a perfectly logical article on Wikipedia. There are more articles out there, these were just three I found on the first page of a Google search. Actually, these were on the first half of that page, didn't need to search further before I could tell it was notable. Rivalries are real things, and while this may not be as big as others, it still passes the test. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources do not do enough to establish notability. Bleacher Report is a poor site that I believe fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO. Otherwise what you have here is one article from 2008 and one from 2011. That's not widespread coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a strong rivalry.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rivalry is intense and has been for 14 years due to divisional rivalry and, even before that, regional proximity. There should also be a Brewers-White Sox rivalry IMO due to the rivalry they had, but that requires more sourcing. Arnabdas (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, I have no great policy-based reasons for it, and I think the article could definitely use more sourcing - but I have friends who are fans of both teams, and I'm assured that both sides do consider it a rivalry, especially with the closeness of the teams. I guess I'm saying that I don't have anything that satisfies WP:V, but I'm sure it can be found. umrguy 42 15:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be better if there was a policy reason to cite. They might think they have a rivalry, but that doesn't in and of itself make it a notable one. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep articles on sports rivalries most certainly can be notable, and this rivalry certainly is notable enough for inclusion here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries can be notable, but what makes this one notable? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources cover this rivalry and state that it is a rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 25 April 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.