Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamondbacks–Dodgers 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. Consensus emerged that the rivalry is sufficiently described as such in the sources provided by Frank Anchor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondbacks–Dodgers rivalry[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Having frequent divisional matchups does not make this a notable rivalry Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's maybe a paragraph of content here that's useful and that can be mentioned on the team articles. The rest of the content can be found on multiple articles. This is mostly FANCRUFT. Nemov (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with several sources independent of either team that describe the teams as rivals and have small levels of detail of a rivalry that is more than a simple routine mention. Sydney Morning Herald LA Times Christian Post KPNX. Frank Anchor 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are describing instances of conflicts between players on the teams and labelling them as a rivalry. As I discussed in another deletion discussion, though, sports journalism such as this has a promotional goal. It is explicitly trying to ramp up interest in the games between the teams. We retain the ability to decide the best way to cover important events in a team's history. I do not feel that Wikipedia is best served with independent rivalry articles to cover every pair of competing teams that have had instances of conflicts between their players. isaacl (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources pass GNG because they are significant (i.e. describe the teams as "rivals" beyond more than simple routine mentions), reliable (coming from notable media outlets), and independent (not directly affiliated with MLB or either team). GNG does not have any stipulation that sports journalism which allegedly has a promotional goal and explicitly [tries] to ramp up interest in the games between the teams should be excluded. Further, the above sources describe history of this series as a rivalry as a whole, rather than focusing on a single moment or brief series of moments. Frank Anchor 16:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some sports journalism articles are non-promotional, while others are promotional, either in whole or in part. They have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I originally was expecting to vote delete, but there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV as provided by Frank_Anchor. If the decision is against keeping, I'd suggest a redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Arizona Diamondbacks vs. Los Angeles Dodgers, as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point. The Diamondbacks-Dodgers rivalry has garnered significant coverage, with reliable sources to make neutral claims. And while I may be a D-Backs fan, I have made notable contributions to articles like these following the 2023 postseason which are written from an unbiased and neutral point of view. I do also like the compromise you suggested: if the article is deleted, it should at least have a redirect to the MLB Rivalries page about D-Backs VS Dodgers. RainbowRunner2000 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank Anchor's sources and also some additional sources I found here: 12News, ESPN, and Chicago Tribune. Conyo14 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 12News source is the same as the KPNX source. I don't have access to the Chicago Tribune article. The ESPN article is a game account from 2019 where there was a disagreement between players and the benches cleared, and the article also refers to the pool incident from six years before that. I feel the use of the term "rivalry" is in the general sense of "tempers were raised by player conduct", and is more promotional than analytical of an inter-franchise rivalry. The press likes to expand the concept of rivalry to cover any case where there is a physical encounter between players, as it attracts readers. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rechecked the Chicago Tribune link and it worked fine for me. Maybe disable JavaScript. Also, I did not realize the 12News and KPNX articles were the same. Finally, the ESPN article... perhaps you're right, but you cannot deny that media always builds up these kind of incidents. Then along with, player and coach spouts, the two teams can become rivals along with fans fueling further hatred. This article is also not super recent compared to the 2023 editions I'm getting hit with. I'll continue to search though. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another: OC Register. I will admit that rivalry articles should have some scrutiny surrounding their beginnings. Especially since it's mostly FANCRUFT. However, if SIGCOV exists, then it's a little hard to deny this. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Tribune article was paywall blocked for me earlier; maybe some free limit cleared just now as I was able to see it. That article is about Kurt Gibson complaining, and the author is arguing that these events are manufactured controversies, not an indication of rivalry. The OC Register article (which I was only able to read for a few seconds before the paywall block came in) covers the pool incident.

Yes, I agreed that the sports press promotes these incidents, as per its promotional goals. Wikipedia editors can decide, though, that there's a better way to cover team histories than giving independent articles covering incidents between every pair of teams, which amounts to providing a degree of promotional coverage for them. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the recent playoff matchup between the two teams and the historical battle of free agency; I feel like the rivalry still has some relevance. Considering the pool incident in 2013, the sweeps for both sides in the NLDS; you still have a decent case to argue that it still presents animosity between the two. PontiacAurora (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just meeting each other in the playoffs a few times does not make a historical rivalry. You could make articles like that about every playoff or divisional opponent, doesn't mean you should. Spanneraol (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the 2013 pool incident is a notable contribution to the stiff contention between the teams. Granted, the rivalry may not be overly historical considering the D-Backs are still one of the newest expansion teams (debuting in 1998), but the fact there are often split crowds at Chase Field when D-Backs play the Dodgers at home goes to show how high the stakes are when they face each other. RainbowRunner2000 (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or it just shows that a lot of Dodgers fans live in the Phoenix area. Spanneraol (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Dodgers–Diamondbacks rivalry: Pretty one sided rivalry, it seems more like the Diamondbacks wishful thinking, but Frank Anchor and Conyo14 refs above show this meets GNG per WP:NRIVALRY. I also found [1], [2], [3], so I think this makes the article well past WP:THREE. The reason for the move is obvious. // Timothy :: talk 03:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalry article names have to be alphabetical. I think it's a MOS:TITLE thing, but don't quote me on it. Conyo14 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a team from Los Angeles, then the LA team is always first ;) // Timothy :: talk 03:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.