Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knicks-Pacers rivalry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Knicks-Pacers rivalry
WP:NOR No proof of an actual rivalry. Tavix (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep this is one of the better known NBA rivalries... the rivalry specifically been written about a bit. Here's another NYT article about the rivalry: [1]. --W.marsh 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Provisional Keep, so long as more sources are forthcoming. I'll see if I can find those additional sources tomorrow, but I know this has been a rivalry since at least the mid 1980's, and I remember many a newspaper article dealing with this rivalry, especially around playoff time (where the winner had the Chicago Bulls of Michael Jordan's heyday to look forward to). Caveat: I grew up in Indianapolis. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - A significant NBA rivalry. I'll see if I can find some sources as well. matt91486 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Additional sources have been added documenting the existence -- and ferocity -- of the rivalry, which included some of Reggie Miller's best games of his career. As always, Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires that a nominator research potential claims of notability before pursuing AfD. As cited above, a Google News search on "Knicks-Pacers rivalry" found dozens of sources, including the ones added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: It would be pleasant if noms were required to research before filing an AfD, but I'm curious as to where on WP:DP it actually states explicitly that they are. Possibly I'm just not seeing the text; could you quote it? RGTraynor 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- In a nutshell: "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Alansohn (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, an interpretation. I see. RGTraynor 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- That ain't no "interpretation". This means that a nominator is obligated to improve the article before nomination, in no uncertain terms, a step that appears to have been bypassed here and at a huge percentage of AfD nominations. Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is what you believe it means, in any event, and that is what the dictionary calls an "interpretation." An explicit requirement would be, hrm, text along the lines of "Nominators are required to research the notability of subjects prior to filing AfDs." If you want to hit WP:DB's talk page to advocate putting that language in, I'll pitch right in myself, but as of now, it ain't there. RGTraynor 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, now I think I get it. You believe that the word "should" means that it would be a nicety if those putting articles up for deletion bother to take the time to do any due diligence before nominating articles, but that they have no obligation to do so and there is no issue if they do absolutely nothing before initiating an AfD. Is this what you are referring to as an issue of "interpretation" that I believe that "should" means "must" while your believe "should" means "only if they want to" when Wikipedia:Deletion policy states "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion"? Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I checked out Dictionary.com and other sites, which agree that "should" means "must". As such, the nominator must do this basic research, editing and improvement, even if the text of Wikipedia:Deletion policy isn't changed. Can you support your claim that "should" means anything other than "must"? Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- As someone once said "This is an encyclopedia, and not only do we have an obligation to know about what we're talking, we have no right to vote or make edits in willful ignorance -- if you insist on being ignorant, go hang out in a blog instead. It drives me nuts to see AfDs filed on articles where the nom could -- and should -- have taken five minutes to follow up a few Google hits and realized the genuine notability of the subject." The fact that Wikipedia:Deletion policy is violated in the process only adds to the problem. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is what you believe it means, in any event, and that is what the dictionary calls an "interpretation." An explicit requirement would be, hrm, text along the lines of "Nominators are required to research the notability of subjects prior to filing AfDs." If you want to hit WP:DB's talk page to advocate putting that language in, I'll pitch right in myself, but as of now, it ain't there. RGTraynor 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- That ain't no "interpretation". This means that a nominator is obligated to improve the article before nomination, in no uncertain terms, a step that appears to have been bypassed here and at a huge percentage of AfD nominations. Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, an interpretation. I see. RGTraynor 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- In a nutshell: "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Alansohn (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: It would be pleasant if noms were required to research before filing an AfD, but I'm curious as to where on WP:DP it actually states explicitly that they are. Possibly I'm just not seeing the text; could you quote it? RGTraynor 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-documented rivalry through the 1990s. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
