Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Bridge (AFL)


 * 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. As the event is less than two years old, perhaps it's just WP:TOOSOON. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Battle of the Bridge (AFL)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NRIVALRY Only sources provided are AFL people trying to create a false rivalry Roboh11 (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 15.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 05:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep. As per the refs in the article, significant coverage in reliable sources. Keep under WP:NEVENT too.  The-Pope (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How is the coverage of this "event" any greater than any other sporting event played in Australia every single year? Are you suggesting that the Swans vs Lions, Swans vs Tigers, Swans vs ... should also have individual pages on wikipedia? The fact that these games vs the Giants attract smaller crowds than the Swans season average attendance show that this is neither a rivalry or an event. Roboh11 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It has a name & significant coverage about the rivalry, those others don't. (and nice textbook example of WP: OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). And from the Giants POV, games vs Syd have an average home attendance almost 3 times than vs any other club. The-Pope (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It has a name because the AFL invented the name. The media just repeated what the AFL called it. The only reason the attendances are higher for the Giants is because their average crowds are much smaller than that of the Swans. Also, can you clarify how this qualifies as WP:NEVENT. Does it have enduring historical significance? No. Does it have widespread (national or international) impact? No. Does it receive significant or in-depth coverage? No more than any other AFL game. Does it receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle? No more than any other AFL game. Roboh11 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the teams participating in this event refuses to call it this. I'm not sure how you can say this is the name of the rivalry when it clearly isn'tCleary89 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — Cleary89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sydney have won all four of their premiership Derbies to date, and most (of not all) have been lopsided. MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 18:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: This subject fails WP:GNG. The rivalry is purely synthetic marketing guff by the Australian Football League. This is not a notable sporting event or rivalry, and this article existing is an example of WP:TOOSOON. One of the teams barely has any fans, the matches themselves are blowouts with no notable incidents occurring at all, I think the Swans half of the 'rivalry' actively deny it's a rivalry. All we are doing here is helping the AFL with it's marketing gimmicks. Even the name of the article was synthetically created and pushed by the AFL through the coach of one of the teams! Two teams in the same city don't automatically make it a rivalry. Out of the 11 citations, 9 are directly from the AFL or reporting of synthetic attempts by people involved with the clubs to give credibility to an otherwise fake rivalry. The other two are little more than "this fixture exists" citations that mean nothing. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2014 (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.