Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QClash (2nd nomination)


 * 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 WP:NRIVALRY doesn't superseed WP:N, so that's that. Wily D 08:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

QClash
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This 'rivalry' topic fails WP:NRIVALRY and it's requirement for a rivalry article to show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial sources. The topics's talk page has had a concern over the topic notability since May 2011. Despite extensive searching no further information added or found to show that the article or topic passes WP:NRIVALRY.

Exhaustive searches were conducted. Google books failed to find any independent reference about the rivalry's importance. A google search with various search terms failed to find any reliable independent references about the rivalry. Those that were found were either non-independent, or basic match reports or previews on individual fixtures. Several searches made by others users during the talk page discussion also failed to find any non-trivial references to show why the rivalry is important.

There were references found that indicate that the rivalry is not important.
 * This article comments specifically on why this 'rivalry' is not important and how simply declaring a rivalry does not make it one.
 * This article declares the rivalry 'confected' (constructed, invented appears to be the intent of the article).
 * This article states that states a true rivalry doesn't exist.

The rivalry fails to pass WP:NRIVALRY. It has been subject of such a concern for over a year now, what few specific references to the 'rivalry' exist argue in favor of deletion as they state the rivalry doesn't exist and is a marketing gimmick and as such this article should be deleted as a non-notable rivalry. There are no more fixtures between this team in the current seasons so it is extremely unlikely any new sources will be discovered. Perhaps in the future will be be a notable rivalry but that would be speculation.

Lastly, I would like to note that a previous nomination took place on this article that was closed due to a technicality. An administrator gave me freedom to create another debate on the condition that I only have 1 debate at a time in progress. To assuage any accusations of 'bad faith' I will confirm that this will be the only AFD I will make. I would like for people involved to view the issue based on the WP:NRIVALRY policy and not on the personal attacks that people who are too close and passionate towards the topic to remain subjective will likely invoke during this debate. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 21.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Its irrelevant what we as editors think of the rivalry or its origins the fact remains that it is given weight by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, with media reporting the Qclash both before and after the events including its effect on the participants. A very simple search shows it meets WP:GNG  as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS consensus by a limited group of editors(see WP:NRIVALRY) cannot override the wider communities consensus.  Gnangarra 20:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I've not made an exhaustive analysis, but does not seem notable.  Sources include multiple self-sources plus one is a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Very detailed nomination article, but there is only one small problem. It is not just a rivalry article.  It's an WP:EVENT article.  And the event is covered in more detail, with more historical importance (win-loss records are recorded and remembered much more than most other results), with awards (for both the winning team and best player) being given for this match only and a bigger buildup than most other football matches, more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The-Pope (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, we have a notability guideline for rivalries now? Good grief.  In any case, not a real rivalry and a bit of clumsy astroturfing on the part of the AFL, but notable as a heavily promoted event.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment about EVENT: The article says in the first line: "The QClash is the name given to the Australian rules football rivalry match between the Brisbane Lions and Gold Coast Suns". I don't see how it could be considered a WP:EVENT when the article itself says it's a rivalry. WP:EVENT is about breaking news events and the sporting version of an 'event' is shown at Current Sports Events. Those shown are annual competition events (2012 Guzzini Challenger, 2012 Swedish Open, 2012 Tour de France etc) and not fixtures in sporting leagues. This topic clearly falls under the WP:NRIVALRY guideline and not WP:EVENT. It fails WP:NRIVALRY as that guideline states that in addition to general notability a rivalry topic must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources. Searching has failed to find non-trivial, reliable, independent sources that show the importance of the rivalry, and instead has found multiple sources that show why the rivalry is not important. While a newspaper writer can create an article about how the rivalry is not important, we at Wikipedia do not create articles about non-important rivalries. This is a non-important rivalry. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NRIVALRY guideline is invalid as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS consensus by a limited group of editors cannot override wider community consensus as the article meets the Notability policy no further requirements are necessary. Gnangarra 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Try reading the whole sentence and not stopping once you reach the word rivalry. The article is about a match between two specific teams that happens twice a year, ie it is a recurring event, and one that meets the GNG requirements.The-Pope (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a transparent attempt at WP:LAWYERING. The logic seems to suggest that every single match in any sporting league with basic coverage can justify an article because it's a 'recurring event' and can meet GNG requirements. The problem with that is we have the WP:NRIVALRY guidelines specifically for this situation. Wiki is not a newspaper. Are you suggesting we need a "Greater Western Sydney vs Port Adelaide" or "Gold Coast Suns vs Fremantle" page? Or a "Manchester United vs Fulham" article? The user knows he can't justify this non-existent marketing gimmick 'rivalry' and as is trying to lawyer this discussion to make it a marketing gimmick 'event'. WP:EVENT is for a completely different form of article to a WP:NRIVALRY and the guidelines for it are geared towards a completely different form of topic. Please note my issue isn't with it being called a rivalry, just that this rivalry is an invented marketing gimmick that cannot justify it's own article on Wikipedia under WP:NRIVALRY.
 * This topic still fails WP:EVENT anyway. It fails WP:EFFECT. It is not a catalyst for anything else notable, just more sports matches. It fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as each match is only a 'burst' of a week and a half of coverage before it dies off again for months at a time. It fails WP:INDEPTH as there is no in depth coverage of the rivalry (demonstrated above by sources which show this rivalry is not important) just basic match previews and basic match reports. It fails WP:DIVERSE as it does not gain significant national or international coverage. It gets a handful of match previews, and a handful of match reports, and then most of that comes out of Melbourne or Brisbane. There is no significant international coverage of AFL. It fails WP:GEOSCOPE. These fixtures have no long term impact on a specific region. Finally it fails WP:ROUTINE. Routine events such as sports matches ... etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. This article fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:EVENT. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the laugh, being accused of lawyering by the biggest wiki lawyer I've met on here. Read my previous comment as to why this isn't just a routine match.The-Pope (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful your able to quote every essay from here to eternity but the only policies that matter are WP:NOTABILITY WP:Verifiability. Gnangarra 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect as shown below. All policies matter. Not just basic ones like WP:NOTABILITY & WP:Verifiability. This topic, as a topic covered under WP:NRIVALRY, must pass more than WP:NOTABILITY to be a suitable article for Wikipedia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No every subject must establish WP:NOTABILITY end of story, once its notable no other guideline needs to be considered see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS Gnangarra 03:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep For exactly the same reasons as the first AfD. Nothing new has been brought to the attention of Wikipedia. Simply a re-iteration of previous claims that were proven unfounded. Should add that two more independent sources have been added since this nomination. WP:N and WP:GNG has been fulfilled. Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The two new sources do nothing but confirm that the league fixtures exist. They do not show why the rivalry is important. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS they dont need to anythng more than establish WP:Notability specificly states significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject which this does. Gnangarra 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect: This topic does need to establish more than notability. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS specifically states: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. and participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply. Community consensus and generally accepted policy is that rivalry matches must show why the rivalry is important. This topic does not. Our members cannot decide that the generally accepted WP:NRIVALRY policy does not apply simply because they are part of Project AFL or like the topic subject. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy appears to me to be the opposite to what you seem to think and if so, it actually argues against your own point. While this topic might pass WP:GNG, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS specifically argues that we can't ignore WP:NRIVALRY and if it fails that policy it should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NSPORT of which WP:NRIVALRY is just a subsections states This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. it meets WP:GNG and is therefore notable in its own right. Gnangarra 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a sports team, person or organisation. It is a rivalry and as such it is covered not only by WP:GNG but also by WP:NRIVALRY as clearly stated in that guideline. It should satisfy the GNG and additionally must show why the rivalry is important. This topic does not have any such sources and none were found in extensive searching. It does not pass WP:NRIVALRY which it needs to pass in addition WP:GNG as specifically stated by the WP:NRIVALRY guideline. You are essentially arguing that this specific reference to rivalry matches can be ignored despite the WP:NRIVALRY guideline explicitly stating what a rivalry needs to do in order to qualify for an article. Trying to ignore WP:NRIVALRY despite its status as the guideline covering rivalries an obvious attempt at policy shopping. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This IS a sports team - two in fact. You are the one policy shopping, and actually forum shopping as well with this nomination for the record. It has already been pointed out that as long as WP:N and WP:GNG is satisfied, the article should stay. WP:NRIVALRY ends up being trivial unless it can be proven that no rivalry exists. Can you do that? Thought not. Footy Freak7 (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per comments from The Pope and Gnangarra - SatuSuro 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not really sure where to start to try and address the nominator's concerns, some of them, such as demanding international coverage, are frankly bizarre. Anyway, as the article and several of those above me have already proven, the topic meets GNG. It should be noted that, while some of the references in the article are from the AFL, several are also co-written by well regarded agencies like the Australian Associated Press. Also worth pointing out the discussion at WT:AFL where The-Pope makes a good case for why AFL Media should be considered independent. Even if we do dismiss all articles from AFL Media as non-independent, it still meets GNG. In addition to those presented above and in the article, here are a few more articles that cover it significantly: "Michael Voss fires back in Qclash slanging match", The Australian; "QClash's pre-game fireworks steal oxygen from NRL showdown", The Australian; "Can the QClash live up to the hype?", BigPond Sport. These are just the first few articles from a gnews search, there's plenty more. Jenks24 (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: My point was that even though this rivalry match fails under the WP:NRIVALRY policy, another user tried to argue it was in fact a WP:EVENT (in effect trying to get a 'change of venue' to render the entire debate invalid via a technicality). I pointed out that not only does it fail WP:NRIVALRY it also fails most if not all of the tenets of WP:EVENT, making the WP:LAWYERING attempt at the policy shopping invalid anyway (just like the attempt at policy shopping with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS appears invalid). I am not 'demanding' international coverage, only pointing it out as one minor part of the requirements for passing WP:EVENT. Secondly, none of those articles have anything to do with why the rivalry is important only that the fixture exists. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether it meets the the sub-guidelines such as NRIVALRY and EVENT is irrelevant, because they are both 'trumped' by GNG, which it does meet. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on a few things: I don't believe The-Pope was wikilawyering or policy shopping and I strongly believe that the articles I and others have pointed out do constitute significant coverage of the rivalry. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a clear misinterpretation of the guidelines and policies involved. WP:NRIVALRY is not trumped by GNG, it is a guideline that a rivalry must follow in addition to GNG and is an inherent part of the guidelines covering Sports rivalries. WP:NRIVALRY specifically states that "a rivalry should satisfy the general notability guideline, and additionally must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources." While the idea of the 'QClash' may be notable enough to pass WP:GNG, it must specifically also pass WP:NRIVALRY. The guideline explicitly says that and to ignore that is an attempt to ignore the guidelines this site is built around and a clear case of policy shopping. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid you've misunderstood the purpose of the SNGs. They exist to supplement the GNG and, basically, are meant to be used as an indicator of when a topic will meet the GNG, e.g. one professional game is often used for athlete bios because that is when most athletes will have the significant coverage to meet GNG, but an athlete can still be notable via GNG even if they don't meet NSPORTS, such as what often happens with number one draft picks or, to use a soccer example, Jesús Fernández Sáez. It's worth noting that the lead of NSPORTS reads "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways, e.g. the general notability guideline" (emphasis mine). Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:GNG, seems notable enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG. Jevansen (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * delete a rivalry cannot exist when only 4 top level games have been played. Otherwise you'd be creating rivalry articles based on coverage for every single played in AFL over the years. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It can if the games or the coverage demonstrates the clash to be notable. The fact that they are the only two Queensland clubs adds to this. Footy Freak7 (talk) 08:57, 27 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.