Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Derby (A-League)


 * 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. There is a clear consensus for deletion here. The arguments for deletion that the article is premature as the potential match has not happened, that the matches between the 2 teams may not be a significant rivalry and that the coverage is not significant enough to establish the notability of the topic, are persuasive with contributors to this discussion. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sydney Derby (A-League)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This future event involves notable participants, however the event itself has received no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG Hack (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: With a dozen improved references this article clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and is an acceptable topic under WP:CBALL. The event in question has significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent from the subject. I also note that not one attempt was made to improve the article nor was any discussion made in the talk page before the article was put up for a deletion request. Under WP:N this is a bad faith deletion request as a deletion request should be a last resort after a good faith effort is made to find references. For this article the Refimprove tag was placed merely an hour before the deletion request was made, Oalexander-En made no good faith effort to find any references either. With so little time given to improve the page and include more references I consider the original deletion request to be in bad faith and as such the request should be cancelled and the article kept as per WP:SK. I would also move to have the article protected from further deletion requests and for Oalexander-En to be prevented from editing the article any further, as he clearly is biased against the subject and has already deleted content prior to his deletion request. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did not delete any of the content - of which there are precisely three dates - but only things like empty tables, templates and the like. May I say, there is not more content as yet. The reception of one of the football teams and the "derby" is as yet unknown. In terms of Sydney sports, association football is of fairly subordinate relevance. Established club Sydney FC has with 8000 average/match attendance in 2012 about half the average of the other ten teams in town that play in the NRL and AFL (ie. Rugby League and Aust. Football) which about describes the general relevance of association football in Sydney. An empty article about a match that has not yet taken place is in the context not really warranted - if it should be warranted in any context. Matches that have a well established notability, such as Flamengo vs. Fluminense, Boca Juniors vs. River Plate, Milan vs. Inter, Celtic vs. Rangers, which are all of a totally different calibre, have articles, and rightly so. I wish to let it be known, that I am not against association football, quite the opposite: I have created and substantially edited hundreds of WP articles on the issue in WP:EN, DE and PT and have, relevant in context, created the WP:DE article on DE:Western Sydney Wanderers FC. I have no real interest in other football codes. So much for a disclosure of potentially conflicting interests. The article  on the "Sydney Derby" lacks notability, and content, the latter as there is none to be put down beyond three dates, which may be easily integrated in the articles for the relevant clubs. Oalexander-En (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:: Repeatedly saying it has no notability, context or shouldn't be included because it hasn't happens yet does not make it so. I have conclusively proven that it is notable and completely follows WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL and that this deletion attempt is invalid. Now for something of an off-topic issue, Sydney FC averaged 12,000 in the two A-League seasons before the recent one (and 16,000 the season before those two), which places it in the same level of support as Cronulla, Penrith and Canberra and only a few thousand less than Manly, Parramatta and the Roosters (when Sydney FC has similar demographics to the Roosers). The 8,000 average comes down to poor performance during the season and to use it as some kind of justification that this article should be deleted is clutching at straws and makes it clear your argument is weak and you know it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: After the event has taken place it may be decided if it was notable. Up to now the article consists essentially of three dates. Shall articles be created for every occasion on which any local teams of notability may meet? I consider it of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Oalexander-En (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: It now has a dozen references (after you failed to give anyone time to add any to the article before placing it up for deletion). As per WP:CBALL it is a notable series of events that are certain to happen. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This event is both notable and certain to happen. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. A schedule of events is appropriate as the dates are verifiable and certain to happen. (Oalexander-En)'s argument does not hold up and this deletion request should be immediately cancelled as a WP:SK. You may consider it of no encyclopaedic value but luckily your opinion doesn't mean a thing here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:Just being mentioned in a news article doesn't prove notability. Under WP:NRIVALRY a sports rivalry must meet WP:GNG and justify its importance through significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The article still doesn't do this. Hack (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: And as I have shown earlier in the listing, this completely meets WP:GNG and already has significant non-trivial coverage with reliable sources.Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:Let's have a look at the sources.
 * 1, 12 - not independent
 * 2 - Only five paragraphs out of 19 relate to rivalry
 * 3 - One paragraph out of 13
 * 4 - Not a reliable source - fan blog
 * 5 - One paragraph out of ten
 * 6 - One paragraph out of 14
 * 7 - Five paragraphs out of 11
 * 8,9 - Not a reliable source - blog
 * 10 - Three paragraphs out of 16
 * 11 - duplicate of ref 6
 * This hardly amount to significant coverage. Hack (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Say X out of Y paragraphs all you like, it doesn't change the facts they are non-trivial coverage and include multiple reliable sources.Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the significant coverage? All of the references amount to routine reporting of the draw (10 of 11 refs are from within a day of the draw) and the fact that Sydney FC will play West Sydney Wanderers FC on particular dates in the upcoming season. There is nothing in the article or in the cited references that attest to the importance of the rivalry. Hack (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete With articles like this on artificially created marketing opportunities, all we are doing is helping out Football Australia with its advertising. This is spam. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ridiculous comment. Ignores that this article has fully justified and sourced references that completely meet WP:GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither HiLo or Hack or Oalexander have given any legitimate reason as to why the article should be deleted. It demonstrably meets WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL, the original deletion request was made in bad faith by users who failed to give the article any time at all to find better sources and as such I once again move that this be given a WP:SK speedy keep and those users involved in the bad faith deletion process be blocked from editing the page in the future. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – because the topic clearly meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – per WP:CBALL & WP:GNG. Non existent rivalry, yes there're almost certain to play each other but that doesn't mean there is going to be legitimate rivalry. Being from the same city doesn't infer there is going to be a strong rivalry. The fact that Western Sydney haven't even kicked a ball yet nevermind played Sydney FC just enforces the fact this rivalry is fabricated. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:CBALL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This event is both notable and certain to happen. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. A schedule of events is appropriate as the dates are verifiable and certain to happen. Another vote that ignores that the article is perfectly acceptable under WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL, despite statements to the contrary. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Did you even bother reading my comment, I acknowledge that the event is certain to happen so there is no need to restate part 1 of WP:CBALL. I'm not debating the fact there going to play each other (so stop going on about it) that seems be your only defence. Playing each other doesn't mean there is going to be a legitimate rivalry. Part 3 of WP:CBALL states articles that present original research in the form of "future history" are inappropriate therefore it's in violation of WP:CBALL. The only one being ignorant is you. Attacking editors isn't going to get you anywhere it's just a deflection tactic you created an article on a non-existent rivalry that you don't know if it's going to come to fruition only that their going play each other. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 06:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy until closer to the first event. It will likely become notable enough. (I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason for keeping but the AFL has a number of these sorts of events as articles.) Mark Hurd (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - two teams in the same area/city doesn't automatically make it a rivalry, especially as they haven't played each other yet! GiantSnowman 07:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL says otherwise. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Examples: Effective rivalries are eg. Fluminense FC vs CR Flamengo in Rio de Janeiro which eg. attracted world record club crowds of five times in excess of 150,000, Celtic FC vs. Rangers FC, where people got killed. Boca Juniors vs. CA River Plate which practically always attract a sellout crowd and a record number of police. Real Madrid CF vs. FC Barcelona, which attract sellout crowds and heads of dead animals get thrown on the pitch. Zamalek SC vs. Al Ahly SC in Cairo and a number more, such as FK Partizan vs FK Red Star in Belgrade, CA Peñarol vs C. Nacional d. F. in Montevideo. They all attract extraordinary media coverage and most often sellout crowds. I suggest, WS Wanderers vs. Sydney FC may be considered notable if it attracts say 40.000 in the Sydney Football Stadium in a city of more than 4 Million, and that not only at the first occasion, but also once the novelty has worn off. There may be indeed a number of so called rivalries listed here on WP which basically aren't really more than normal interclub matches. However, it is beyond the scope the issue here to examiner all these kind of matches that may have slipped through proper vetting. Proper rivalries usually take some time beyond marketing hype to get established. It would not be wrong to revisit the pairing discussed here in a few years time once a proper evaluation can be made. I am not sure what the rush here is all about. With the Western Sydney Wanderers we don't even know if they at all going to find acceptance by the public; for years to come the club will remain in the ownership of the Australian FA, the FFA, as a private investor could not be found to take on the risk establishing a western Sydney A-League franchise. Considering the volatility of Australian association football the Wanderers might be killed off inside a couple of years if they will not start paying for themselves soon - even more so, as currently crowds generally trend downwards. Oalexander-En (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: None of that has anything to do with this article. It meets WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL as those are writte and demonstrated earlier. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Football games routinely generate significant media coverage, but few are considered individually notable. If this develops into a notable rivalry it would justify an article, but for now it fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Given the short lifespan of A-League teams, it can't even be guaranteed that the game will take place this far out! Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: So many people completely ignoring wiki guidelines. I should hope the administrators aren't swayed by people too ignorant to read the appropriate guidelines, WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL, all of which show this article is notable and should not be deleted.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article, most of which deal primarily with the publication of the fixture list for the coming season, talk quite a bit about the second Sydney club having neither a confirmed name nor a home ground as at time of publication. They do mention the word "derby" in connection with the match between the new and pre-existing Sydney clubs, but that's pretty well it. That doesn't constitute multiple independent significant, i.e. non-trivial sources for the notability of that game. Further, as has been said above, there's more to a sports rivalry than two teams from the same city playing each other, even when they've actually done so. WP:NRIVALRY requires not only general notability, but "additionally must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources." This article doesn't, because it can't: no derby has yet taken place. If it does, and if it becomes a "rivalry" in the true sense of the word, then there'll be plenty of sources to illustrate why it matters. As of now, there aren't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to appease those who aren't satisifed, I've expanded the article and included more notable references that specifically mention the rivalry and it's importance despite not having taken place yet. I think it's time to shut down this deletion debate, as it now completely and utterly satisfies all aspects of WP:GNG/WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL. Any contrary viewpoint is just stubbornness, bias and a refusal to see what's in front of them and an attempt to wikilawyer a legitimate article off the website. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - GNG or N: The first argument against the topic is in the nomination, and is that the article fails WP:GNG/WP:N.WP:GNG requires "Reliable Sources" that are ""Independent of the subject" and for there to be "Significant coverage". There are 7 references that fit this description, which is clearly enough to be considered "significant coverage". The article passes WP:GNG without a shadow of a doubt. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - CBALL: The second argument against the topic is that the article fails WP:CBALL. This guideline states that Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As proven in the WP:GNG the article is notable. The event is certain to take place. As such this article clearly passes WP:CBALL. Macktheknifeau (talk)
 * Comment - NRIVALRY: The final argument against the topic is that the article fails WP:NRIVALRY. The only thing that isn't covered by the GNG or CBALL is multiple non-trivial, reliable sources about the rivalry and why it is important. The sources are reliable. There is more than 1 source. This article passes WP:NRIVALRY. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. All three arguments raised have been systemically debunked. As no other arguments have been included, it must be concluded that the article is notable. As such the article must remain. Any other result goes against the very guidelines this site is made from. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of articles are written on upcoming events, and we just update them when they start. Why can't we just keep this for now, and if somehow the derby never takes place, then delete it?  Openskye (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 12:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this and also the numerous other non-existant derbies that are in Category:A-League rivalries. Nine derbies for a league with ten teams, its ridiculous. The Australians do actually think that these are derbies, and by Australian terms they probably are. But in footballing terms most of these are insignificant and not real derbies. Adam4267 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some are derbies (and a rivalry), others are rivalry matches (but not local derbies). It's actually 13 teams overall, and two of the rivalry matches involve defunct teams. If you feel the need AFD the others, but based on WP:N and WP:NRIVALRY most if not all would stay. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * comment could Macktheknifeau cease endlessly responding, see WP:BLUDGEON.
 * Comment: First of all, I don't see why I can't comment on blatantly incorrect viewpoints that ignore all the guidelines that actually govern the site. Secondly, I've made 2 comments in the last 3 days, one of which was a response to someone trying to broaden the deletion debate. Hardly 'bludgeoning'. I've actually been waiting for an admin to lock the debate and cancel the deletion as it's been proven the article should stay. But to appease the unsigned commentator, I shall refrain from further comment of new editors, regardless of how incorrect they are. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment - Did you read WP:BLUDGEON, that's why you can't comment on every person. At a strectch only one national news network has given a moderate amount of coverage to this. No 2 in Hack's list, you failed to give a response to that. As he points out coverage is not significant or non-notable, just having a lot of refs doesn't mean they are good. It does not meet WP:NRIVALRY and I would bet that just about all of the A-League derbies wouldn't. Adam4267 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * delete as per WP:CHRYSTAL . not an established rivalry and the event hasn't even occurred. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the references provided in the article there are none which cover the "Sydney Derby" in any kind of depth, they just saw that it will exist. As such, this fails WP:GNG. I think that Macktheknifeau has misunderstood what is meant by "significant coverage" - this refers not only to quantity of sources but the depth to which those sources cover the subject in question. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: For me as a visitor who know little about abbreviations like WP:GNG - I clicked on some of them, but did not really bother reading - this article is an absolute nuisance. It says nothing. I has a table, where it says they have never played each other. There are several articles like this on Wikipedia, but this is the first one that told me I can discuss its deletion. You can tell me on the page of the Wanderers entry that they have never played against FC - you don't have to provide a link to confirm this. I indeed think, it would be a very good idea to delete this article about nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.143.50 (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC) — 121.218.143.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.