Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994

: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. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994]]=

:{{la|Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994}})

Original research by synthesis. There is no inherent notability in the coincidence that an NBA and an NHL team representing the same city reached their respective league championship in the same season. The topic is effectively a mash-up of 1994 Stanley Cup Finals and 1994 NBA Finals with other irrelevancies thrown in - i.e.: who won the civic election that year. This article was nominated for deletion once before here, but was quickly redirected by the article creator, thus ending the deletion debate. Seems they have chosen to restore and move it to a new title, though it remains as non-notable today as it did a couple months ago. Also nominating Bulls–Blackhawks championship runs of 1992 for the same reasons. Resolute 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:*Or 2009 with the Steelers/Pens. There's a limited number of sports towns in the US and the big 4 major pro sports leagues. There's a pretty good chance that in any given year, you'll have the same team playing in both. Heck, two years ago, we had the same matchup in the college football and basketball national title game. It's trivia...not an encyclopedic phenomenon. --Smashvilletalk 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::* Yeah, and there's been at least one time Texas won both the college baseball championship and was consensus #1 in football in the same year. No doubt someone sitting down with the annual lists of champions in the respective leagues could come up with several coincidences.  RGTraynor  04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:::*to wit: CFL-NHL: Edmonton Oilers/Eskimos: 1990, 87, 82. There would be numerous Montreal Canadiens/Alouettes examples in the 50s. Resolute 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per Djsasso. --Smashvilletalk 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect
  • Delete for reasons stated by RGTraynor. That said, I do give the author credit for his extensive, and dramatic, writing style, and am somewhat saddened that all his work appears headed for deletion. He could make a great career working in public-relations. -Sme3 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Changing !vote to go with Metropolitan's suggestion. Apparently, we're voting on this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knicks–Rangers_championship_runs_of_1994&oldid=309665417], which an editor created, and then redirected to Madison Square Garden. I don't see anything in that article (which still exists in the history) that couldn't have been said in the articles about the NBA Knicks or the NHL Rangers. Finish it off. Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. This was previously nominated for deletion under a different title; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994. I closed that AfD debate when the article creator changed the article to a redirect to Madison Square Garden. However, instead of leaving it as a redirect, the article creator went on to revert the article and continue to work on it -- occasionally interrupted by changing the article to a redirect to Madison Square Garden. In fact, it appears that the article creator has changed the article to a redirect, then reverted the redirect, at least 35 times since then. I don't understand the motivation for this, but it doesn't seem like an appropriate way to edit an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt I agree with Metro on that. Mandsford (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect: This is part of New York City sports lore, but it's better to redirect to Madison Square Garden. Let's delete and redirect the article to Madison Square Garden. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 11:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • : But you've already redirected this to Madison Square Garden. I don't see this as a likely search term, and a redirect isn't really a delete, since it's all in the history. Again, can't this information be incorporated into articles about those teams 1993-94 seasons? Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • :I will echo what Mandsford has said. You should not be redirecting the article during an afd. Deletion and redirect are two different things. This is not an appropriate redirect to madison square garden as someone looking for information on madison square garden is not going to type this in a search box. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • ::Redirecting can be a valid way to end an AfD debate, but we've been down this road before, and you continue to try and push this little obsession regardless. I agree with others that the proposed redirect isn't a good target as nobody is ever going to make such a search. Let this AfD complete. Otherwise, we'll just be doing this again at RfD. Resolute 20:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no advantage to organizing the information like this. Zagalejo^^^ 20:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not sure what the best way to handle this article is. Perhaps keep, perhaps merge with Madison Square Garden, perhaps delete and merge the relevant contents to the individual Ranger and Knick season articles, perhaps something else. But none of the delete arguments so far seem to hold up. There is little or nothing in the article that can't be sourced without synthesis, so the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH argument doesn't work. The argument that there have been many instances of multiple teams in a city winning or almost winning championships. Heck you can get multiple examples just sticking to New York - Jan 1969 the Jets won the Super Bowl, Oct. 1969 the Mets won the World Series (and then a few months later the 69-70 Knicks won a championship as well); The 1986 Mets and Giants won the World Series and Super Bowl respectively; the 1927 and 1928 Yankees won the World Series, the 1927-28 Rangers won the Stanley Cup and the 1927 Giants won the NFL championship (the Yankees and Giants combined in 1938 and 1956 as well). But none of these situations, nor any listed above, are relevant to this article. Because what makes the topic of this article different is that both championship runs were occurring in the same building at the same time. Which is also why organizing the information like this does have some advantage. Because in many ways, this was one big event - virtually every day for two months Madison Square Garden was hosting a playoff game, right down to game 7 of the respective finals. Which created a much different buzz, with much different coverage, than when the Knicks alone when to the Stanley Cup finals a few years later, for example. Or when the Mets and Giants won their respective championships in 1986, but 4 months apart. Rlendog (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • :The synthesis and original research is that the two as a combined event was notable. I highly doubt you can find many sources talking about the combined event as a notable happening. I don't doubt that the atmosphere was different and that each individual even was notable. But was it notable as a single entity? I doubt it and I doubt you can find any sources specifically talking about them as a combined event which is what would be required per WP:RS. Not just articles about one that mentions the other was happening at the same time. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • :I am not so sure. I don't care enough about saving this article to try to dig up 15 year old sources. But I recall a lot of coverage about the two teams marching towards potential championships together, and possibly ending long championship droughts at the same time. And comparing Messsier captaining the Rangers to Ewing captaining the Knicks. And comparing Keenen coaching the Rangers to Riley coaching the Knicks. Rlendog (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • : Probably up there with the many other times this has happened. Just for laughs, I ran a list of the four major sports from 1951 to 1993. Leaving out the CFL and the AFL, two teams from the same city in the same year making the championship finals isn't merely unusual, it's common - happening in 27 of those years. The Boston Celtics and the Boston Bruins have done it in three of those years, including back-to-back in '57 and '58. The Yankees and the football Giants did it three straight from 61-63, and the LA Dodgers and the Lakers did it three straight from 63-65. Four of those seasons teams from two cities had multiple finalists, and three seasons had cities with three finalists: 1951 (Giants, Yankees, Knicks), 1980 (Phillies, 76ers, Flyers) and 1986 (Celtics, Patriots, Red Sox).  RGTraynor  07:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • True. But the only examples of those that happened simultaneously were the Celtics/Bruins ones. And since they have done it several times - and by the time the Bruins became good around 1970 the Celtics had been in the finals many times in recent memory - those examples may not have warranted as much coverage as the Rangers and Knicks did in 1994. Of course, there were other instances of simultaneous championship runs in NY, especially during the 1940s and 1950s (and 2000), but those are covered under their respective World Series articles. Rlendog (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Err, no, see 76ers/Flyers (1980) as well as Knicks/Rangers (1972), Bulls/Blackhawks (1992) ...  RGTraynor  18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I had forgotten about 1972, I guess since both the Knicks and Rangers lost and neither final went the distance. And that was also different from 1994 since the Knicks were world champs just 2 years earlier. Of course, there have been other instances outside NY, as you point out, but it is still an unusual event. And I don't know if the 76er/Flyers or Bull/Blackhawks (or 1973 Knicks/Rangers) similtaneous championship runs generated the coverage that the 1994 Knicks/Rangers did. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Which would suggest that you're going on personal memory and supposition here. You're a New Yorker, so arguably the 1994 championship runs were to you a very big deal, while by contrast winter series taking place when you were in elementary school or those in Philadelphia or Chicago made much less of an impression. I cheerfully accept that the spring of 1994 had to have been an exciting time to be a NY winter sports fan, but we can't base the validity of articles around happy memories, any more than it's valid to have a Boston championship sports in the 21st century, even though Boston teams have played in ten league finals and won six championships in the last eight years and we're pretty happy about that here in Massachusetts.  RGTraynor  19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • :IMO, the only real value articles like these have is that they can help create a clearer timeline of when certain events took place in a given stadium. We used to have an article, List of arenas to host NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals in the same year, which provided that information succinctly. However, it was deleted. Zagalejo^^^ 02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. Not really an encyclopedic topic as a stand alone article as well. Tavix |  Talk  23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt - blatant OR. Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994 should also be deleted ans salt—Chris! ct 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think the article falls under OR. The organization of the information may be original, but the facts that make up the article are not. (Admittedly, there is some unsourced material.) I still stick with my above position to delete the article, as well as Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994 as Chris stated above, but let's make sure the reasons are accurate. -Sme3 (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does fall under original research. Editor cannot "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." See WP:SYNTH.—Chris! t 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just for my own education (and please don't consider this an argument, since we both ultimately support the same position), what conclusion is being reached or implied? Is it simply the fact that, indeed, they both played in the same place at the same time? -Sme3 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What conclusion that is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" is derived from "combin[ing] material from multiple sources"? Rlendog (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That the combined event itself was a major notable occurrence. -DJSasso (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2009 (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.