Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Derby (MLS)

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.

New York Derby (MLS)

New York Derby (MLS) (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)

Further to similar/linked AFDs on

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have made significant improvements and believe it now meets
  WP:GNG. I have added multiple independant reliable sources. Paul  Bradbury 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Pbradbury:...which lack the significant coverage required by GNG. GiantSnowman 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman: I'd argue coverage by The New York Times, The Telegraph, The BBC, The Guardian and ESPN as a derby and rivalry constitutes significant Paul  Bradbury 12:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Coverage" and "significant coverage" are different things... GiantSnowman 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, from WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. - The articles referenced are not about a match but are about the derby and rivalry, thus meeting this definition, they are by multiple reliable respected sources. Paul  Bradbury 12:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, described as a "derby meeting" in a BBC Sport match report. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jmorrison230582: - how does that make it a notable rivalry, exactly? GiantSnowman 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a match report, it contains no significant discussion of the rivalry at all bar mentioning the word derby. How does this satisfy GNG? Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The Guardian, ESPN. FourFourTwo. Reliable sources talking about the rivalry beyond simple match preview / review. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The media calling something a "rivalry" does not make it so, as any regular reader of sports journalism will tell you. See, for example, the 'famous' Arsenal-Stoke City rivalry! GiantSnowman 12:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• However when the teams and the league they play in do, it likely is. Paul  Bradbury 12:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - you simply can't have a rivalry when they have only played twice about five minutes ago and when one of the teams competing is in their debut season! Yes there has been coverage of the two matches which has discussed notions of rivalry, but this is not significant coverage per
  WP:NRIVALRY by definition as it concerns only two meetings between the two clubs. This may well be a notable subject in a few years, especially if similar articles are generated each time the two sides meet, but just not at the moment. I have bolded words in my argument that you simply should not be seeing in any discussion of a rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Fenix down: They have played two games, not one. However this is an irrelevance, if you read the independant sources cited in the article they describe it as a derby and a rivalry. WP:GNG is not about whether it meats an editors definition of a rivalry, its whether its reported and recognised as such in the world Paul  Bradbury 12:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have corrected that. It still makes no differences, you can't have a rivalry after two games. and you will want to re read GNG, it clearly notes significant coverage. Yes, people have remarked on a rivalry, but this is only in the context of two games, that is what makes this coverage insignificant. Fenix down (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to re-read WP:GNG and what constitutes significant, I have posted it above. Paul  Bradbury 12:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NTEMP applies in reverse. Just because something has only been going for a short period does not mean that is not notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ok then, let's look at your sources in more detail:

1. The Graun is not an article on the rivalry itself, it's just a round up of MLS news. More importantly it contains the phrase, There is actually a chance that this could develop into a proper rivalry, i.e. this isn't a proper rivalry yet. So this is really an anti-source for GNG.
2. ESPN regardless of what you said is merely a
   routine|match report
   and discussion of the clubs in general. More telling again, it includes the phrase, the stirrings of a legitimate rivalry in front of us. this makes it quite clear that there is not a notable rivalry there yet.
3. Four Four Two does provide a wider discussion of the history of football in NYC and goes some way to providing significant coverage. however, this is an article written before the teams even met, it is quite speculative on the possibilty of a rivalry. Phrases like In the city of New York, a soccer rivalry is brewing add weight to the idea that there isn't really much to speak of at the moment.
4. The BBC does not discuss the notion of the rivalry as a thing in anyway whatsoever. This is a
   routine
   match report that uses the word derby once. This is the very definition of insignificant coverage of a subject.

I have no doubt that in time there probably will be enough for a standalone article, but after two games and a few mentions, it is

too soon. There simply is not enough out there that discusses the notion of rivalry between these two teams as a standalone concept to satisfy GNG and those that have been provided all contain elements that essentially astate that there isn't really one there just yet. Fenix down (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

the article is not called New York rivalry it is called New York derby. A rivalry may or may not develop into an intense one, however this is still a derby. The references above are not all of the ones in the article and as stated above it meets

WP:GNG and it's definition of significant coverage. Paul  Bradbury 12:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Derby / Rivalry, that is just semantics, in either case

WP:NRIVALRY is still the relevant guideline. You don't have a derby without a rivalry, you just have two teams playing in the same city. If you have other references please provide them. It would also be more useful if you attempted to engage with criticism of the sources rather than simply parrotting "it meets GNG", "it meets GNG". Fenix down (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The other sources are provided in the article. The reason I am talking about whether it meets WP:GNG is because that is the criteria the deletion should be judged on. Your argument seems to be revolving around the noteworthiness of the article and not on the deletion criteria which is not really the point. See

WP:NOTEWORTHY. Paul  Bradbury 12:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is an excerpt from the NY Times reference in the article

• 'It may not have had the intensity of a visit from D.C. United, but there was a sense that this was the beginning of something that would grow.' - NY Times

The rivalry is new and building, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Paul  Bradbury 13:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't seriously just use

WP:ITEXISTS

? Anyway, lets look at the sources in the article too:

1. The New York Times - the definition of an anti-source, it clearly states in the title that there is no history to this rivalry! Nothing more needs to be said on this.
2. Goal Nation is a 131 word puff piece on a marketing ploy for the first game. In no way is this significant coverage of the notion of a rivalvry between the two teams.
3. ESPN has been dealt with above.
4. BBC Again, an anti-source. This quote is so telling: Most footballing rivalries are based on decades - sometimes even centuries - of animosity, so can the New York derby be described as a rivalry at all? "Not really," says Bradley Wright-Phillips, the Red Bulls' top scorer last season. "DC United are our rivals. There's no history between the Red Bulls and New York City, it's just that we share the same city. There is no rivalry!
5. New York Times is a
   routine
   match report. Nosubstantial discussion of the rivalry.

Now given that the sources in the article themselves include an interview with a key player who states that there is no rivalry, why is this derby notable?

Your use of

WP:NOTEWORTHY is erroneous. Its first sentence (The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content.) makes it clear it is not a guideline for use in AfD, but for articles where the subject is deemed notable. This discussion is about the inherent notability of the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

OK probably my last response since I am not sure this is really getting us anywhere.

1. The Telegraph Is not an anti-source, it simply says the rivalry is new and has no history, which is not in contention, of course it is new and as stated previously has no bearing on its notability
   WP:NTEMP
   .
2. BBC Again not so. The substance of the article can be summed up in this excerpt rather than a quote from a single individual. 'Wright-Phillips, the former Manchester City striker, might not feel the tension that comes with a traditional derby, but the rivalry is already fierce between the two sets of supporters.'
3. ESPN Again, incorrect, your quote from the article clearly indicates a building rivalry. Again
   WP:NTEMP
4. New York Times Is not a
   WP:MILL
   match report, it is one that talks at length about the derby and rivalry. It is a match report though.

I did not use

WP:GNG you have yet to show how it does not. It meets the definition of significant coverage, reliable sources and independant of the subject. Which are the relevant criteria. Paul  Bradbury 13:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

1. The telegraph - if it has not history its not notable.
2. The BBC - I would say it is more important when someone involved in the supposed rivalry explicitly states that it does not yet exist than the opinion of a blogger / fan who is unlikely to be objective in their opinion
3. Please re-read NTEMP. It is quite clear that once a subject is notable it remains notable, it does not say that a subject is notable the instant anyone starts writing about it. There's no TEMP argument here as the subject as no one is arguing that the rivalry was notable but no longer is, what is being argued is that it is not notable and never has been.
4. I have shown on a source by source basis how outlets have written about the potential for a rivalry but how there is a tone thoroughout that it does not yet exist though probably will in the future. Fenix down (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The telegraph - if it has not history its not notable. - Please indicate the relevant wikipedia guideline that says this
2. The BBC - The BBC is not considered a blooger/fan its a reliable source, your opinion is not a wikipedia guideline.
3. You have still not indicated what part of
   WP:GNG is not being met which is the criteria for the articles exsistance. Paul  Bradbury 14:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. The telegraph - if it has not history its not notable.
   WP:COMMONSENSE
   two teams who have played each other twice and where one is in its debut season have simply not been around long enough to constitute a genuine rivalry beyond marketing hype. because there is no history the only thing of substance that the sources presented can talk about (bar comments about the two games that have taken place) is what might happen in the future.
2. The BBC - they are a reliable source, but the quote from a fan is arguably not, whereas Bradley Wright Phillips comment is.
3. GNG - that would be the notability part, there are constant references to this not having any history, not really being a rivalry, having the potential to become a rivalry in future but not now. there is coverage, but it is coverage that indicate a lack of notability. Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The telegraph - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. A rivalry can be notable after a single game.
2. The BBC - It's not a fan quote it's part of the editorial.
3. GNG - It states - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. This article meats the definition of significant coverage (multiple articles discussing the derby and the rivalry), reliable sources (BBC, The Telegraph, NY Times, ESPN), independent of the subject (none are the teams or the MLS). That is what constitutes notability, not your assumption that there is not a big enough rivalry with a long enough history, it's not a notion, its defined. Paul  Bradbury 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fenix down's assessment of the sources is solid--the sources are simply not solid. One could say it's too soon, or one could say there is not enough significant coverage. This is an encyclopedia, and we should require more coverage than a few news reports. I disagree very much with the direction in which we're going, that a write-up or two in a newspaper or somewhere else is enough to guarantee that the GNG is met. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't understand this. It clearly meets GNG, you may have an issue with GNG, but then you should bring that up in the appropriate forum and maybe propose a change to it. The content of the article includes reference to the rivalry and whether it is manufactured or real. It may need expanding upon, but that would go down to article quality and I am certainly not proposing that this is anything more than a stub at the moment. It is by no means an attempt to make this an FA. The derby is an event, that is described as such by multiple independant sources as well as the MLS and the participating teams. This article is about that event. It contains reference to the rivalry which is nascent but real. This does not make the article un-encyclopedic. The biggest problem I see with it at the moment is that it may veer towards being an almanac type article, which is considered what wikipedia is not. However some further work would rectify this. I just don't understand why people want to destroy others hard work rather than trying to improve the body of knowledge. Paul  Bradbury 16:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you can't understand that when I say "it doesn't meet GNG", we have a difference of opinion, then I can't help you. That something happens doesn't make it notable. And I don't have an issue with the GNG--just with too many editors thinking that a write-up or two in a newsp... wait, I already said that. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarcasm noted, I always find that productive in a conversation. Show me how it doesn't meet GNG, simply saying so does not make it so. GNG is clear and unequivocal about what constitutes notability. Namely - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. It's also very clear about the definition of those terms. There is no other criteria. If you don't like that (which evidently you don't). Then take it up in the appropriate forum, don't simply apply your desired outcome to an AfD. Paul  Bradbury 16:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: I do not consider this a valid challenge of my assertion, and I think we're into IDNHT territory. Good luck, Pbradbury, with your article--and to your "fuck you very much" for my restoration of it, when G4 deletion was supported by a second admin, I just say "you're welcome". Drmies (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank-you, It is not my article I had made no edits on it until after you reinstated it, I then made significant changes to it in order to meet WP:GNG, for all intents and purposes it is a different article than the one you G4'd. I don't understand your hostillity and resent the way you have spoken to me throughout our interaction. I hope your day gets better. Paul  Bradbury 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems to me like the people supporting delete here are trying to enforce an arbitrary higher standard than
  WP:GNG. If they don't like GNG, they should try to change it. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Aspirex: Would this count? | New York derby: 'A spectacle unlike anything we've seen' It talks about rivalries in general and holistically, from what is a rivalry to how that applies to the New York Derby. It interviews, fans and players about the rivalry and draws the conclusion 'Wright-Phillips, the former Manchester City striker, might not feel the tension that comes with a traditional derby, but the rivalry is already fierce between the two sets of supporters.' Paul  Bradbury 12:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is described as a derby by much of the media. It is not as big as rivalry than those with more history such as the Old Firm Derby but I feel the bigger attendances than usual in both matches show that the fans want to win it more than a fixture against a different MLS team. --CovCity97 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I recently deleted a link to "Hudson River Derby" which I assume was this same derby. It clearly does not have an official title or sufficient coverage for either title. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This fails the GNG. Not due to lack of coverage in appropriate sources, which normally is the concern, but rather due to a lack of showing that the coverage is an indication of genuine sustained notability.
  WP:NRV is part of WP:N, and it captures this situation perfectly: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." I would argue that both the short-term interest clause and promotional activity clauses are at issue here. This can of course be cured with time, and sourcing with captures the interest over time. However, that time is not yet. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:41, 12 July 2015 (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.