Indians-Tigers rivalry ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted almost 2 months ago and although I can't view the article anymore to verify overall quality, based on the discussion it seems like there was definitely enough policy based reasoning to have resulted in a relist or no consensus. The debate seemed to hinder upon the interpretation of what a rivalry is, with some people claiming there needs to be more of a serious documented history and the others saying that there is enough sourced notability to allow for a possible article. Other notes include, that it was a flat delete with no explanation, and one user, Ultimahero, appears to have "voted" twice. RoadView ( talk) 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Additional Comment - Now that the article has been temporarily restored, I can see that it was definitely lacking. However, based on the afd discussion, I still lean towards the result being no consensus or further relist as the sources provided were not legitimately invalidated in my opinion. But I'll live if this one is destined to stay deleted. - RoadView ( talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - arguments in favour of keeping the article had little or no basis in policy and generally just argue that the two teams are rivals. The double !vote from Ultimahero didn't affect the outcome in my view. -- Michig ( talk) 07:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse see WP:NRIVALRY: "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." No serious problems with the debate, although it's correct one guy did vote twice. Many of the keep votes failed to make their case or presented a total unfamiliarity with Wikipedia (or both), for example one guy just said they "play in the same division 18 times a year so it is a legit rivalry". It was even relisted once and if anything after the relist consensus was even more clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - all of the delete arguments are along the lines of "I just don't feel it's notable". While some of the keeps are "I feel it's notable", PortlandOregon97217 shows that it meets WP:N. There's no way an even headcount + all the policy/arguments on the side of keeping can be closed as delete. Wily D 15:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse without prejudice to recreation  DRV reviewers must analyze the closing to determine what it means.  Statements in the article such as "The rivalry was intense in the 1940's and the 1950's" that have no citation could be WP:OR, so I would expect that this article was deleted and properly so because of WP:V (although it was WP:NOR that was argued in the AfD).  The message for article creators is to create articles that from the start have inline citations that satisfy WP:V.  What about the notability of the topic?  WP:NRIVALRY makes things simple by pointing to WP:GNG.  Yet we see arguments like, "Hardly outrage, like we would expect from a notable rivalry."  "Outrage" is not a word that can be found in WP:GNG.  Likewise, "No one outside the fan bases cares" is not a WP:GNG argument.  Then there are !votes with zero weight, such as, "Definitely not notable enough for its own article".  Ten sources listed in the below comment refute the claim, "Sources that describe the two teams as long-time rivals just aren't there."  None of the !votes arguing against notability provide evidence that searches for reliable sources turned up empty.  There are similar problems with four invalid keep arguments, but there are also four valid notability keep arguments.  With a clear delete outcome and relatively few policy-based notability !votes, the closer may have wanted to avoid the notability issue.  No one mentioned potential redirect targets, but where would editors point the redirect if one existed?  As for the objection to the title of this article, I don't personally see the problem, and we already have precedent at Brewers-Cubs rivalry.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment  List of references mentioned in the AfD, plus one book reference:

• [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
• Jason Porterfield (2009). Baseball in the American League Central Division. The Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN  978-1-4358-5042-2. Retrieved 2013-03-24. The rivalry developed during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, as both teams enjoyed success, including winning world championships. The rivalry has intensified in recent years, with both the Tigers and Indians becoming competitive once again...

Unscintillating ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I really don't understand where WilyD overturn argument comes from as Ultimahero made a reasonable case that all those sources are simply trivial mentions and thus successfully rebutted. I don't see anything that indicates a consensus change. Secret ^account 02:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Nothing wrong in how the closer interpreted the consensus of the discussion. Nothing more needs to be analyzed. Tarc ( talk) 15:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to History of the American League, and encourage merging. Individual historic rivalries are a bad way to organise material. By focusing directly on specific rivalries, the page is drawn into WP:OR, constructing material from the original news stories (now primary sources), and lacking context or historical perspective. I imagine that coverage of the historical rivalries within the affiliated sport governing body could make for very suitable and interesting material, if placed in the context and perspective of all the teams and rivalries collectively. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply