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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indians-Tigers rivalry

[edit]
Indians-Tigers rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by primary editor (actually it looks like two different accounts run by the same person, which is another matter). This is a non-notable "rivalry". In my Google News search, I see that a few journalists use the "r" word in conjunction with these teams, but there's no indication that it actually is a rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of time the Tigers and Indians have finished 1st and 2nd in the standings: 4. 1908, 1940, 2007, 2011. From 1901 to 2012, 111 years, it's happened 4 times. That's not enough for a true, notable rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The past few years have seen the Indians and the Tigers flip flop for divisional superiority. Since each city has a passionate baseball fanbase, it can be argued that the brewing resentment is just waiting to erupt into full-blown hatred." Definitely passses WP:GNG with these WP:SOURCES PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I believe that you are just trying to find anything you can that might support your conclusion. However, these articles you’ve cited are very poor. Let me explain:
  • As you cited from the CBS article, it asserts that the rivalry is “intense” because the two clubs “normally contend for the AL Central Division crown”. However, a simple look at the standings refutes this claim. From 1995 through 2001, The Indians won 6 of seven division titles. During the stretch, the Tigers had a losing record every year and never finished higher than third in the standings. From 2002 through 2006, both teams only had one winning season each: 2005 for the Indians (when they finished 22 games ahead of the fourth place Tigers), and 2006 for the Tigers (where they finished 17 games ahead of the fourth place Indians). From 2007 through 20012 the two clubs have finished above 500 only a single time in the same season: 2007, when the Indians were 8 games better than the Tigers. So in 18 years of playing for the AL Central, the two clubs have been in contention with each other only once. (And that’s if you count an eight game differential in the standings as contending.)
  • The “ClevelandFan” article is not about the rivalry itself. It doesn’t even discuss the rivalry, thus it does not apply.
  • The Blade article says this: “Somewhere in all of this warm and fuzzy rhetoric is a budding rivalry between these two teams, and the players are well aware of it to.” So the author believes that the rivalry is just beginning to form, and will be competitive barring a “collapse unforeseen by most national pundits”. Well, that collapse happened, as the Tigers finished in last place in 2008 and the Indians have been below .500 each year since. So the very thing the author cites as a possible impediment to this just barely conceived rivalry wound up happening. So, at best this article might be able show that there was a rivalry for a year or two, at best. Hardly demonstrates there’s a rivalry in the sense that is needed for a whole Wikipedia article to be devoted to it.
  • The article by Forbes is not a good article. It’s major premise is to consider how much teams will mark up “rivalry” games, with the idea being that if fans are willing to pay more to see their club play a particular foe, then perhaps a rivalry exists there. However, the subsequent ranking have nothing to do with said mark-up (for example, the Cardinals-Cubs are ranked lower than the Pirates-Phillies despite having a higher mark-up). Presumably the writer just subjectively chose whichever teams he wanted.Ultimahero (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Ultimahero, If this shouldn't have an article than why should Brewers-Cubs? And how much AL Central and Indians-Tigers do you watch? The games are competitive, the two cities are close to each other and share lots of similarities with each other and for fans of the Indians and Tigers the game has a big game feel to it. It is the only divisional game for Indians fans that has a big game feel to it . The only reason the Yankees-Red sox rivalry gets far more attention than Indians-Tigers is because of media hype and market size and that New York and Boston have bigger market sizes than Cleveland and Detroit. The same goes for Dodgers-Giants and Mets-Phillies. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brewers-Cubs shouldn't have a rivalry. I would support that article's deletion as well. However, that's not the point. A flawed article in a different area of Wikipedia doesn't justify a second flawed article with the same problems. I don't watch many Tigers-Indians games but I don't need to. Are you saying we can only judge whether or not a rivalry exists between two teams if we watch the majority of games? Certainly that's not valid criteria. I don't need to watch the Yanks and the Sox, for example, to determine that they have a big impact on baseball and their rivalry is notable.
  • As for your criteria, how are the Tigers and Indians "competitive"? In the last 19 years, the time since the AL Central was created, the two clubs have finished 1st and 2nd in the division only twice. And one of those was 2011, when the Tigers finished fifteen games ahead and the Indians were below .500. I can't see how that's competitive. As for the cities being close, so what? That can enhance a rivalry, but that doesn't make a rivalry. Cincinnati is close to Cleveland too but that doesn't mean anything. Finally, how do you quantify "a big feel"? So the Indians aren't a good team the last few years, thus having little to play for, so the Tiger game are the only ones that make Indian fans excited? I get that but that doesn't make it a notable rivalry. It means absolutely nothing to the people outside of Cleveland and possibly Detroit. Come on, the Yanks and Sox or Dodgers and Giants have had far more impact on Baseball and it's history. That's why they get more coverage.Ultimahero (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions that the Tigers game is the only game that is a big game for Indians fans is wrong. In my opinion a big game feel is a game that has more excitement than a regular game. (e.g an indians game against the mariners or Royals). BTW a big game for Indians fans are games against the Reds, Tigers, Yankees or even the Red sox or a quality Interleague opponent. As for Brewers-Cubs, Indians-Tigers is a bigger rivalry than Brewers-Cubs and deserves more attention than it gets. And in 2011, for most of the year the Indians were relatively close to the Tigers . Even in 2012 the Indians were close to the Tigers until the end of July pretty much. And there IS history. In 1908 and 1940 the Tigers were only ONE game ahead of the Tribe for the A.L pennant. And Ty Cobb of the Tigers barely beat out napoleon lajoie of Cleveland for the batting title in 1908 or 1910 i'm not sure. And in 2007 the Indians and the Tigers were pretty much neck and neck during 2007 until the Indians swept the Tigers to finish them off and the games drew BIG crowds in both stadiums. And the same thing happened in 08 when both teams were bad. And also later that year the two teams got into a brawl that resulted in FOUR ejections and punches were thrown. There was also a brawl in 1936 where after the fight the Tigers fans threw stuff at the Indians. So I think some history is there and the hatred is there. Thanks, Clecol 99. Teamed up with Geocal5 to make the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF on how other stuff existing doesn't impact the current discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never assumed that the tigers were the ony big game for the indians fan. You said it was the only divisional game with a big feel. So I was asking what you meant. In any case the rivalry may matter to you but its not notable to baseball as a whole. No one outside the fan bases cares. And there have only been 4 1st and 2nd place finishes between the clubs: 1908 1940 2007 and 2011. That's hardly a notable history. Ultimahero (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • PortlandOregon's sources are not satisfactory in my view, as Ultimahero described. These sources are better, which makes what I thought was a clear delete more borderline. I'm still not sure that these are enough to establish that an actual rivalry exists, or existed. But this is good work. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? Forbes is legit! And to all those questioning the level of the rivalry. It doesn't matter if it is a friendly rivalry or a bitter rivalry. It is still a notable rivalry according to Forbes, and all the other souces dug up. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Forbes article legitimate? Did you see the comments I made above?Ultimahero (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCES. Nothing you can say can erase the fact that an article in a reputable and huge publication explicitly mentions an Indians-Tigers rivalry. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... It proposes a methodology for determining which are the biggest rivalries then subsequently ignores it's own criteria. That invalidates it's credibility in my opinion.Ultimahero (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I use the sources to assert that certain articles pass the WP:GNG. The gng is what I usually go aim for. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm just pointing out that this notable source is problematic because it doesn't follow its own criteria. Are we always obligated to accept a source, even if it has massive internal problems.? If this is the best the "keep" side has then they're in trouble. Are we not allowed to question the slurce if it doesn't even follow its own criteria for notability? I'm not saying the article makes no sense because I simply disagree. I'm saying it can't even follow the guidelines it lays out so how can it be useful to the reader?
  • The Reading Eagle says the rivalry “seems to be building up to major proportions” based on a single instance late in a single game in 1936 where a manager protested and fans threw fruit. Presumably, the author is not claiming it is at a high level but is building towards it and we would need to revisit the issue at a later date to see if anything materialized. Did this author ever revisit the subject? Because history doesn’t seem to support the notion that the rivalry went anywhere.
  • The Toledo Blade article says, “The rivalry simmered, spitting little patches of smoke, but there wasn’t much substance, not much to get excited about.” The article is about how, again, there MIGHT be something developing in the 1986 season. Again, history tells us it didn’t as the Tigers finished third and the Indians finished 5th. So did this author revisit the issue and give a follow-up?
  • The Herald Journal doesn’t discuss the rivalry, it just calls it a rivalry in the 1940 season. Which 1940 was one of the few examples of Indian-Tiger competitiveness, so that makes sense.
  • The Meriden Journal discuss the 1960 swap of managers. The article calls this “can only be interpreted as an attendance gimmick”. Hardly outrage, like we would expect from a notable rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- why can brewers cubs-I repeat-BREWERS CUBS have an article if this can't? This is the same, but fiercer. People that said delete, you have to think about the other ones you guys let on. from, Geocal5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geocal5 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curse Forbes for perpetuating these fake rivalries! (sarcasm) Anyway, please read this if you still believe this is a trumped up rivalry. Remember, Verifiability and not truth. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't know that I've done a great job explaining my problem with the Forbes source so let me try again. Forbes is not a sports publication; it's primary focus is business and finance. While Forbes does publish sports articles or lists from time to time, even those are largely comprised of "richest team" types of lists. So I don't think anyone could rightly call Forbes an expert in the field of sports in general or baseball in particular. So, when a publication doesn't have an expertise in specific field should we really be citing them? I mean we wouldn't quote, say, an ESPN article as a source on world affairs, right? Because that would be out of their area of focus. So while it's true that our goal is "verifiability", the source also needs to be able to speak credibly in that particular field. Besides, if this "rivalry" is as substantial as it's proponents claim it to be then shouldn't we be able to fine some references from actual baseball people? Former players, managers, writers whose primary focus is Baseball, etc.?Ultimahero (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't let that slide, my fellow Oregonian friend. "Verifiability Not Truth" is Orwellian gibberish. Here's Mr. Jimmy Wales on the matter: "Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." (Sept. 25, 2012) The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and veracity. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, so do the Padres-Rockies, Blue Jays-Oriels, and Astros-Mariners. Do those deserve their own page? If not then same division is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry.Ultimahero (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just assert that the rivalry has hatred and history. Document that hatred. Show how the teams have historically hated each other. And prove that there's a deep history because I don't see it. I see four seasons where these two teams competed for a playoff spot: 1908, 1940, 2007 2011. 4 seasons throughout more than 100 years of existence isn't enough.Ultimahero (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You shouldn't judge rivalries cheifly on 1/2 finishes there were also competitive seasons that were NOT 1/2 finishes I think there were a couple times in the 1940's or 50's where the two teams were within 10 games of the American League. There also is hatred because there has been a couple beanball wars over the years[reply]
Clecol99, I think close 1st and 2nd place finishes are the best way to judge a rivalry because that directly relates to two clubs being in direct competition for a playoff spot. In general, I don't think 3rd or 4th place finishes mean much. That being said, I'm open to examining more evidence but, with all due respect, its your job to provide it. I don't think its sufficient for you to say "I THINK there were some times in the 40's or 50's where X happened." If you think this rivalry should stay then you need to do the work to find the data. "I THINK" isn't good enough. As for the supposed "beanball wars", that's great. Find the references and we can talk about it. But I can't really comment on it until then.Ultimahero (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2013 (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.
Category