Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Derby (AFL)
=[[Sydney Derby (AFL)]]=
:{{la|Sydney Derby (AFL)}} – (
:({{Find sources|Sydney Derby (AFL)}})
Subject is non-notable, has no significant coverage in independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Deletion Reason: By participating in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_Derby_%28A-League%29|Sydney Derby (A-League AFD)], I have a better understanding of the process for notable rivalry, and discovered this AFL 'derby' and found it to fail the same issues that caused the A-League page to be deleted.
By the consensus in the other AFD, for a rivalry to be notable it must follow WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. This article fails both. For an article to be notable it must have significant, reliable coverage from sources independent of the subject. This article has none and by prior consensus it must be deleted as well.
It currently has 7 references. 5 references are AFL.com marketing spam and are not reliable. The Herald Sun reference has nothing to do with the rivalry. The smh.com.au reference is comprised solely of AFL players and coaches talking about the so called rivalry, making it an unreliable and self-interested reference and thus can be discounted. Thus the article fails the basis notability guidelines by having no significant, reliable or independent coverage.
As per the wikipedia guidelines I looked for references about the rivalry itself, and what I found was that that the rivalry has not grabbed the attention of it's home city, has disappointing crowds, matches of poor quality, that the excitement for the new team is wearing off, that new team simply cannot compete in a realistic fashion with the other team, and that it is simply marketing hype at the current stage.[http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/giants-not-in-the-ballpark-20120630-21a72.html|1] [http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl/sydney-belts-greater-western-sydney-by-94-points/story-e6frepf6-1226413188052|2] [http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/as-derbies-go-its-only-early-days-20120630-21a63.html|3] [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/swans-smash-gws-in-sydneys-afl-derby-20120630-21a2s.html|4]
No rivalry exists, and nothing proves this rivalry is anything more than a regular match played between two teams who happen to exist in the same city. It doesn't deserve a specific article and the article as it stands is AFL marketing hype not suitable for Wikipedia.
Maybe in 5 years when one of the teams has a hope of winning a match this can return. But we must consider WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. A potential future rivalry is no reason to keep this article, for all we know the new team will fold due to lack of interest before a notable rivalry exists. There will be no more matches this season for the rivalry to gain any additional coverage so no more references will be made.
It is non-notable, and exists only as AFL marketing spam. There is no prospect of the rivalry becoming notable in the near future. The article must be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep this is a clearly notable event that has been WP:POINTily nominated along with a bunch of other AFL rivalry games in retaliation to a not yet played association football game being deleted - Sydney Derby (A-League)- The-Pope (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Commment - The article doesn't currently show how it meets WP:NRIVALRY (let alone WP:GNG) - only two of the references are independent and only one of these addresses the rivalry. Hack (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral. Clearly a POINTy nomination, but I do have concern that that the rivalry is barely matured to be article-worthy just yet. Moondyne (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2012 (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.