Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India–Australia field hockey record


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

India–Australia field hockey record

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced and not sure what makes it notable. Played over 100 times, but that alone does not make a "rivalry" notable. Kante4 (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete At present it's just a laundry list of statistics, single reference. Google search does not reveal any notable rivalry between Australia and India at field hockey. Aspirex (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing to show there is a "rivarly" and just a bunch of stats.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * delete notability isn't granted by simply listing the results of 2 teams playing each other. LibStar (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Australia and India are both very successful in field hockey and w have rivalries in a few sports. At the Olympics India is the most successful of all time and Australia is third of all time. We played India in the final at the last two Commonwealth Games. I think this article should not be deleted. Alec Station (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the rivalry needs to be the subject of significant coverage, please supply sources. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is called the "record" not the "rivalry" but yes we do have a rivalry of course, though not as strong anymore as India has slipped behind as they cannot afford to practise on astroturf like the wealthier teams. All Commonwealth nations have rivalries in the English sports like cricket and hockey, and India and Australia are the dominant nations historically. What sources do you want? The record is very strong. Articles that discuss our many important matches? Alec Station (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * sporting rivalries are not inherently notable as per WP:NRIVALRY. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's nice. The article is called the "record" not the "rivalry". What sources do you want? (this should be deja vu) Alec Station (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

we don't have articles simply listing results between 2 major international teams. Any rivalry that is notable should be documented in reliable sources. It's not my job to find them the onus is on you as a keep voter. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may interject, statistical records between two sports teams – regardless of the richness of their onfield history – are seldom adequate for an article, falling under the category ofWP:INDISCRIMINATE §3. Rivalries will generally get an article only if there is some sort of off-field manifestation of the rivalry which goes beyond the results, and I've not seen any suggestion of this. The prose you've described, IMHO, is content well suited to (and already mostly present in) Australia–India_relations and Field hockey. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Question for the nominator There are also similar articles entitled India–Malaysia field hockey record and India–Pakistan field hockey rivalry (the latter of which is called a 'rivalry' but is substantially the same article format as the two 'record' articles). Should those articles be bundled into this same nomination, or is there a specific reason to treat them separately?
 * Should be deleted aswell. But that's not a discussion that should be held here and now. Kante4 (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2015 (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.