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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astros–Yankees rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There's very little coverage to support an entire article dedicated to a rivalry between these two teams. Their matchups in the postseason are already adequately covered elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Nemov (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Frequent playoff matches can always create a rivalry, but you still need reliable sources to prove it, not just WP:FANCRUFT. At the present time both the Yankees and Astros have not met consistently enough to warrant their own article, and subsequently, pass GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article does not demonstrate a "rivalry". It is a history of Astros-Yankees matchups. Similar pages could be created for all possible MLB matchup histories, but it would be FANCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject appears to contain enough WP:SIGCOV with which to pass the WP:GNG, including from CBS Sports [[1]] and the NY Post [[2]]User:Let'srun 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - New York Post is redlisted as generally unreliable at WP:RS/PS / WP:NYPOST. Some editors have supported making an exception for sports coverage, but that has not achieved consensus.

  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. I clicked on this expecting to vote "delete". As someone who was raised on MLB in the 1970s and 1980s, the idea of a Yankees-Astros rivalry struck me as absurd. Having clicked on the sources cited by User:Let'srun, I'm not so sure -- those are two major media outlets clearly defining it as a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  New York Post is only considered semi-reliable. CBS Sports is a good source for this, but otherwise, it still does not pass WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sports journalism has a promotional aspect to it, and thus uses the term "rivalry" to cover a broad set of cases, as any two teams that compete against each other can be said to have a rivalry. As there's no official definition, it falls to editorial judgement to decide on what version of the concept is best suited to be described in a stand-alone article. Personally, I feel the concept that meets English Wikipedia's standard of having an article is a sustained competition over years to be recognized for superiority, encompassing fans, players, organizations, and to some degree, the broader citizenry of the associated geographical areas. For better or worse, though, there isn't a simple test to determine this. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean it's called WP:GNG, with the mentions of "rivalry" or synonyms therein. We don't have WP:NSPORTSRIVALRY though it would be a neat project to do. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Promotional coverage isn't suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met, though, and some sports coverage is promotional: it is explicitly written to ramp up interest in the players, teams, games, competitions, and so forth. This means it will play up conflict, bestow monikers on people and events, and use non-neutral language, for instance. We retain the ability to use editorial judgement to decide what is the best way to cover important events in a team's history, and Wikipedia may not be well-served by having independent rivalry articles for every pair of competing teams. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a rivalry for sure as the teams meet consistently in the playoffs, but this is partially influenced by New York and Yankee fan media being much stronger nationwide about a rivalry than say, Royals-Cardinals, and the rivalry outside of a certain situation involving wastebaskets seems to be the Yankee fans being annoyed about another team being better than them lately...and the Houston/Astro side being more 'just get better then' than anything else, along with the Yankees' futility as of late. Outside NY media beyond the AL playoffs, there's not much to be found about these teams playing. Nate • (chatter) 16:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Note that Houston based media (in this case, the Houston Chronicle) has also labeled the Yankees as a top rival, so coverage exists in both markets [[3]]. Let'srun (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Cbl62, but it is not just the Post and CBS. The Daily News also calls it a rivalry [4]. As does Newsday (in one article a Yankee player calls it "obviously a big rivalry", and both teams' managers call it a big rivalry) [5] [6] [7]. While normally I would be skeptical of a rivalry of short duration like this, the resentment the Yankees (and their fans) still harbor from Houston cheating their way to beat them in the 2017 ALCS makes this more significant than most rivalries of similar duration. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Daily News is semi-reliable, so we chalk that to a partial. As for the Newsday articles #4 is ROUTINE, #5 Interview of a player, so it's technically not independent, #6 I'd say is quite significant. I might change my !vote as a result. Conyo14 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For me for something to be considered a rivalry there needs to be a long historic narrative. A few months ago a similar article was deleted from the same author for the Astros/Braves. Those two teams have a much longer history, but they weren't traditional rivals. The Braves and Dodgers have played a lot against each other the past few years, used to be divisional foes, but it's not a historic rivalry. There needs to be more than a few playoff series to justify an entire article. Nemov (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In most cases, including Braves/Astros and even Braves/Dodgers I agree with you. But in spite of those teams being in the same division for a while and in an undivided National League before that, and perhaps some playoff games, there is nothing particularly unusual about their interactions. But Astros/Yankees became unusual with the 2017 cheating scandal and then they continued to have high level playoff interactions since with that as a background. Rlendog (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only reason there's any coverage is because it's the Yankees so it's covered from multiple angles. The Dodgers lost to the cheating Astros and there's no need for an article either. Nemov (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have a full article about the cheating scandal plus reactions. It's moreso the WP:SIGCOV quite a few meetings may have sparked a rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The cheating scandal itself is covered elsewhere. But it also created an environment that made subsequent Yankees-Astros interactions far more intense than it other would have been, raising them into rivalry territory. As for "The only reason there's any coverage is because it's the Yankees," that is hardly a valid deletion rationale. Our notability guidelines are based on the coverage of the subject, with no exception for coverage involving Yankees. The Yankees and Dodgers are somewhat different in this issue because the Yankees and Astros have had more subsequent interactions to generate a rivalry beyond the initial cheating scandal. Rlendog (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You can write an article like this for every team matchup that has faced each other over many years... doesn't mean we should. To be worthy of it's own article it needs more long term and cultural significance.. for example Yankees/Red Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cardinals are significant historical rivalries.. this one is not. The "rivalry" as it is has only existed for a few years... it needs to extend over decades for it to be notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: What guideline is that, exactly, that a rivalry has to exist over many years? Let'srun (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What's included in this article that's not included elsewhere? This brief mention on the New York Yankees article pretty much covers it. Per WP:NOPAGE, there's not a clear explanation for why this article should exist when it only covers stuff mentioned elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Scope of article is centred on a WP:CFORK of Houston Astros sign stealing scandal. WP:NOTEVERYTHING also applies. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:01, 3 November 2023 (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.