Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 ANZAC Test


 * 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. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 ANZAC Test

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The concern is that this article is about an individual rugby league test match that is not notable. Vanruvan (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does the nominator have any reasoning for the bald assertion that the test is not notable? No reference is made in the nomination to any policy or guideline. No reference is made to the multitude of references in the article demonstrating this to be a match that received wall-to-wall sports media coverage over a substantial period of time, particularly before the match. The match is considered so significant that the announcement of the venue months in advance gets coverage in national media. This match did not receive routine coverage of the kind described in WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT. It is an annual event between two of the three best rugby league national teams in the world. It was also notable for being the first even ever held at Melbourne's AAMI Park (which the article notes). These kinds of tests are rare: there are only two or three test played every year between Australia, New Zealand and England. In short, this appears to be a drive-by nomination: the thought put into it certainly appears disproportionate to the work that multiple editors put into the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  --   -- Lear's Fool 00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  --   -- Lear's Fool 00:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  —SatuSuro 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - all the parts of the argument of Mkativerata - and understanding WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY am restrained from making further comment - (however well intentioned the nomination was - the cultural aspects are such - no matter however few matches occur - how seriously the New Zealanders take their rugby - to suggest to nominate a delete of one of their matches...hmmm ) SatuSuro 00:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This strikes me as a good-faith nomination, but I'm afraid it should probably be withdrawn.  This is a well written and well referenced article, and the event meets the general notability guideline, and the relevant specific notability guideline.  -- Lear's Fool 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG and as per all the reasons mentioned by Mkativerata. Not sure why this was nominated :/  Dubious Irony  yell  03:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Despite how well written and referenced the article is, I really can't see how this goes beyond a routine scheduled sports match with coverage exactly as described in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. There was nothing outstanding about the game itself. The only claim to notability seems to be that it was the first event in a new stadium. Given that, I would have thought brief mention in the article on the stadium should cover it, or am I missing something? wjemather bigissue 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Does seem to be covered as much as it needs to be in the article on AAMI Park and the overarching ANZAC Test article. There is nothing to indicate any lasting sigificance of this individual edition beyond being the first match in the new stadium, which is more notable to the stadium than the test match series. Otherwise news coverage seems entirely routine for this kind of match. The SMH article Mkativerata links to above relates to the 2011 match, which will be held at AMI Stadium (AAMI in source - spelling error by AP, I guess) in Christchurch, NZ, not the 2010 edition held at AAMI Park in Melbourne, Aus. and just goes to show that it is routine for the build up coverage to start long in advance with the announcement of the venue. wjemather bigissue 00:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't pretend there's a clear answer to your questions, because the relevant guidelines (eg WP:EVENT) and concepts (eg "routine coverage") are always open to interpretation, so reasonable minds will differ. I think a routine event and routine coverage in this context refer to the run-of-the-mill events like weekly National Rugby League fixtures. A Test Match between Australia and New Zealand is different: it gets wall-to-wall (therefore not routine) coverage over several days if not weeks, and is one of only four tests that the major league nations will play in a year. For that reason, it will also be covered in rugby league history books (CRYSTAL, I know, but these discussions always involve predictions of enduring notability or otherwise). --Mkativerata (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Mkativerata, who I believe sets out all the arguments for notability quite well. This was not your run of the mill footy match.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
 * This AFD was closed as snow keep by User:Dusti, a non-administrator, at 08:08. Per WP:DPR, I, an administrator, am voiding the close without prejudice and reopening the debate. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per my above comments. Even though it is not an everyday sporting fixture, AUS-NZ recurs often enough, both with the annual ANZAC test and at other times with the tri-nations and four nations competitions. As an international match, coverage inevitably goes beyond that of weekly NRL matches (when there are many matches to cover instead of just one), but in the context of internationals (in any sport) such expanded coverage is normal and routine. There are sufficient RL international matches held for them not to be inherently notable, and there I see nothing exceptional about this one. wjemather bigissue 20:05, 17 January 2011 (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.