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 Merge/Redirect; action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers-Kings rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Not a sufficiently historically or otherwise notable rivalry. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I disagree with the contention that there is no Notability. However, it should not have its own piece. Rather to be dealt within the teams individual Wikipedia page. Shoessss |  Chat  13:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with Shoesss above Matt below, though I can't bring myself to vote keep because I'm not convinced of this as a legendary rivalry. Even taking it for granted that this is a famous rivalry (below Lakers-Celtics, yet above Lakers-Clippers perhaps) it rates at least a mention in the two articles. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sports rivalries on Wikipedia oftentimes have enough content and information for their own page; I think this is the case here. It meets notability because of several incidents, but moreover, detailed content would be duplicated between the Lakers and Kings page and clog up sections of it. This is a way to have the content there without excessive duplication and helps to prevent bias in coverage of the rivalry that could differ on each team page alone. matt91486 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe I am misunderstanding, but why would we worry about duplication between the pages? If as you pointed out, there maybe bias on a particular teams page, would not that than eliminate duplication, in that you could not have duplicate bias on two different sides of the fence, hence no duplication. Regarding clogging? Again, I am not sure what you mean? If this is an important and notable rivalry as believed, would you not want that on that particular teams page Wikipedia, rather than a spin-off, so readers would not have to search for it. Shoessss |  Chat  17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My work with rivalries is primarily in college basketball, so that's what I'll use as an illustration. For the Tulsa Golden Hurricane men's basketball article, we included a rivalries section; this includes a link to a separate article on Tulsa's rivalry with Oral Roberts, the Mayor's Cup. I think each NBA team should have a section for rivalries, which would explain all rivalries in a paragraph and have see also links to other ones, for the Lakers say, see also: Lakers-Celtics rivalry, Lakers-Kings rivalry, Lakers-Clippers rivalry. I think this is the best way to present that content. Sorry if I was unclear before. matt91486 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered your comment about a single article about a rivalry, rather than articles on the separate pages, to minimize bias. In the matter of two sides of a rivalry, however, I don't think it would be bias, but rather a difference of perspective. Different perspectives, IMO, should be encouraged, while bias (a one-sided view to which there is no response) should not. As such, I like to see articles that discuss the American Revolution from the perspective of British history. I prefer your suggestion in the preceding post of a rivalries section in each team's page. It's not necessarily and either/or choice. Maybe the subject can be discussed both here and on the team pages.

Yeah, I understand exactly where you're coming from. And I'm all for a small paragraph on each teams' page outlining the rivalry with a link to a bigger article that can explore it in more detail. matt91486 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am not altogether convinced this rivalry is in fact notable enough and exists enough in reality for there to be an article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by exists enough in reality. If you're trying to say it's artificially created, I don't believe it is; it's developed mainly in the past 10 years, but it's a legitimate rivalry. matt91486 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per above. Shoessss |  Chat  18:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything, but you voted delete twice here, so I just want to make sure you're not overcounted when the admins are going through it, haha. (Yes, I know it's not a democracy). matt91486 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Rather Important Comment for Closing Admin: - I just poked around a bit and there's a Rivalries of the NBA article as well; merging content there might be preferable to outright deletion. There's already a small paragraph about the rivalry and then a link to the main article. matt91486 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is NO competition between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Kings. They both use the Staples Center at different times, with one team playing there while the other is on the road. 63.84.72.153 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but this article is talking about the Sacramento Kings, not the Los Angeles Kings. matt91486 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until there are proper sources saying that a rivalry exists between both teams. Currrently the article violates WP:NOR, as it's mostly info on why the editor think it's a rivalry and why. The sources doesn't tell that the two teams are a proper rivalry, compared to other teams like the Heat and Knicks one. Thanks Secret ^account 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the rivalry between the two is mentioned in several sources. I didn't look too hard, since I'm pretty sure this article is going to get deleted no matter what I find, but here, here, here and here are ESPN articles over a multi-year period outlining it as a rivalry. This was literally a 30 second search, so I'm willing to bet this article could be exhaustively sourced. But as I said, at this point, it's looking like it's going to get deleted no matter what I do, so I didn't look closer than that. matt91486 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think a Merge the sourced material from the first two links only would be most proper. The last two is a game recap, and a game fight, which doesn't really talk about a rivalry in general Secret ^account 20:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -matt91486 is correct. Sports rivalries are key, and the Kings-Lakers rivalry is very notable. -- KBW1 14:08, 22 January 2008 (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.