Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Derby (A-League) (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 no consensus. Given the robust participation and discussion involved, I don't think there's a great deal to be gained from relisting. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Derby (A-League)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this is actually a rivalry, as opposed to two teams who are obliged to play each other regularly because of the nature of Australian soccer. The two teams have only ever played each other three times, making this look more like WP:CRUFT than a genuine rivalry. Maybe a rivalry will develop, but you cant call this a derby / rivalry which passes WP:GNG after only a season and a half, particularly when there seem to be no notable incidents associated with the matches beyond the games themselves. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry. Giant Snowman 09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aren't admins supposed to follow the rules instead of just blindly supporting deletion requests because they have a personal vendetta against the creator of the article? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Request early close via Snowball Clause. This nomination has no merit (the nominator clearly hasn't followed WP:BEFORE) and I wonder why a Russian editor who has no local knowledge has even bothered to nominate the article without discussion. I request an early close (Snowball Clause) as the nominator doesn't appear to have actually read the article, nor has he attempted to discuss the page before his nomination and has instead just nominated every A-League rivalry he could find without attempting to find any consensus or improvement prior to the nominations. If he had done so, any concerns could have been assuaged before he had to go to the lengths of an AFD. His concerns listed and answered:

WP:CRUFT/WP:GNG/No indication this is a rivalry: Perjorative use of cruft implies that the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. This is untrue. There are numerous sources included in the article (signficant coverage), from reliable major news sources that are independent of the subject, and if the author had brought up his issues, I'm certain more sources could have been found to improve the article even further. This is a local derby between two teams from Sydney. As stated in the article, the rivalry is a geographic rivalry between a team from the Eastern Suburbs and one from the Western Suburbs of Sydney.

Only 1 season: I would point the nominator to WP:NTEMP. Just because a subject is new doesn't mean it can be dismissed as non-notable. A rivalry already exists in part because of being a geographic derby rivalry, and the inherent nature of the East vs West divide in Sydney. Additionally, this rivalry has roots beyond this recent season, having existed prior to the introduction of the new team Western Sydney, because people in the West rejected Sydney FC. There were also prior attempts to create a team in Western Sydney that saw the creation of a rivalry between supporters from Sydney FC and the future Wanderers supporters. Again, if the nominator had bothered to discuss his concerns work could have been done to improve the article or help the nominator understand.

No incidents: Again, if he had read the article, he would have seen that Sydney FC prevented Western Sydney from winning the A-League premiership in the 3rd match, that is one notable incident, and if he had dicussed it, I could have seen that no-one had added the incidents in that 3rd match where players from both sides were sent off for violent conduct against the opposition. Additionally, there would also be the ability to introduce sources that discuss incidents between the supporters in regards to the rivalry. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article might be sourced, but the sources merely show that matches were played. They make no real comment regarding any rivalry beyond simply being local teams. There has basically been no change since the last creation of the article. Maybe in time there will be a genuine rivalry which is documented in reliable sources at length. At no point does the article or any of the sources make any significant comment on a wider geographic rivalry and this would be irrelevant in the context of this article as it would not make a football related rivalry inherently notable. Can I also ask that you assume good faith in future rather than claiming nominators useing pejoritive terms and that another editor has a personal vendetta against you. Fenix down (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you bring that up on the talk page before creating the nomination? It is much harder to work under the pressure of an AFD deadline than it is during a typical talk page discussion. There already exists a 'genuine' (what wikipedia guidelines should I go to find exactly what "genuine" means?) rivalry, but don't have the time to work through your half-dozen AFD's along with fixing up the pages in such a short space of time, and clearly someone from Russia has no real place in nominating articles involving an Australian football league they have no knowledge of, without trying to discuss it with people who know the subject. I would suggest you withdraw the nomination and post your issues on the talk page so the issues can be worked through in a productive manner that doesn't include the ticking time bomb of a deletion request. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time in these discussions, I am not Russian. Please also refrain from telling me what I do or do not have knowledge of and what I may or may not involve myself in. I felt there was no need to bring the matter up on the talk page as, given that there have only been three games played between the two sides EVER, that there could not possibly be grounds at the moment for stating that a significant enough rivalry between the two teams has developed to warrant a separate article and the fact that there is essentially no material change in circumstances from the last deletion discussion that there was nothing to be gained from taking it to the talk page. There are, as with many of these Australian "rivalries", little to no sources that reliably and in any detail discuss the actual rivalry. By that I don't mean a bad tackle in one game, a couple of sendings off in another and a separate general geographical rivalry that an editor then synthesises into a rivalry, but a discussion of the actual rivalry itself. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only disagree yet again with your decision not to bring up an issue on the talk page as per the WP:BEFORE rule, but I shall not bring it up any further. I apologise for any offence you felt by remarks about being Russian. There is a significant rivalry between the sides despite only three matches having been played, with the rivalry going back more than just those three matches due to the way the A-League and the sides involved came about (involving supporters from the old club switching allegiance to the new club, issues with the founding of Sydney FC, being part of the wider East vs West rivalry in the city, players switching clubs and things like one manager having played for the other club prior to the introduction of Western Sydney) although the article itself isn't quite up to date or as fully sourced as it should be. The AFD clearly puts pressure on the people involved with the articles to simultaneously defend those articles in the AFD and try to add sources to satisfy whatever 'grounds' you would need to withdraw the nominations, hence my suggestion to withdraw the AFD and leave it on the talk page. Note: The article was a userfied page prior to it's launch, hence why it might look the same since launch. If no-one brings up any concerns about the page (either on the talk page or directly to a major editor on it) before trying to delete the article how can anyone actually fix them? Not everyone has unlimited time to spend on making a wikipedia article perfect. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (post) @ 10:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 10:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable rivalry. I'm a diehard soccer fan and love my A-League (support the mighty Perth Roar) but I can't justify this article's existence. Jevansen (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean Perth Glory. Portillo (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I'm with Jevansen - big A-League fan - but I can't support keeping this at the moment. I actually think this is a matter of WP:TOOSOON. I'm sure this will one day be as big a deal as the Melbourne derby or The F3 Derby with an extensive history, significant incidents and cultural score-keeping. But at the moment it's just a series of routine games with nothing to differentiate them from other games, except for maybe crowd size (but big numbers are not a reason to keep things). Come back in a couple of seasons - someone will likely have written a book about it by then! Stalwart111 11:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG. No evidence of a rivalry discussed by reliable sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now, before anyone accuses me of an anti-soccer bias, I have previously worked hard to kill rivalry articles associated with the AFL. These are no different. Primarily marketing efforts by the leagues involved, hoping to suck in the fans to think the games are somehow more important than they really are. We must not be doing the marketing for these professional bodies. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the derby is hyped-up by marketing efforts from the league, but this is done to all rivalries in sport including that of El Clásico (which is specifically stated in the article). Although that doesn't justify a rivalry, I don't think it diminished the legitimacy of this case. There is a real history of football and rivalry in the city which has transcended beyond marketing.--2nyte (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all such "rivalries" are hyped by the A-League and the associated "derby" games are the same but only a few are actually notable by our standards. The F3 Derby, for example (which I think I've highlighted during deletion discussions for US college football "rivalries"), has been the subject of extensive (national) coverage and much of the coverage has actually focused on the derby itself (history, culture, etc.), not just the rivalry or routine games between the teams. Though geography-specific, games not either on the Central Coast or at Newcastle (like pre-season trial games) are still referred to by the media as "F3 Derby" games. I think that's the level of coverage we should be expecting of other so-called "rivalries" and their "derby" games. I'm sure the Sydney Derby will get there - it's just not there yet. Stalwart111 05:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article chronicles a real Sydney suburban sporting rivalry albeit nascent. Let the article grow I say. I don't understand why it can't be allowed to stay and hopefully improve. Silent Billy (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nobody is questioning whether or not there is a nascent rivalry, what is being discussed here is the fact that there seems to be no real in depth sources that discuss the rivalry, just a load of match reports, from which synthesis has been produced to indicate notability falsely. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is and always has been a strong rivalry between the West and "Central" Sydney. This is evident in these derby matches. Try telling supporters of either team that a "rivalry doesn't exist"... Ck786 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then where are the sources that reliably discuss this rivalry? Nobody, as I have said countless times, is saying a rivalry doesn't exist, merely that it is not (and given that there has only been three games between the two sides cannot) be notable as there are no reliable sources that provide any significant and specific coverage of the rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NRVE suggests that "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." During this AFD process there have been additional sources found, the article explains why this rivalry has been around longer than 'just' the three matches played so far (and also that the rivalry is about more than just the matches) and NVRE also states "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I believe that the article has already shown improvement, editors have found independent reliable sources that 'discuss the rivalry' as requested by the nominator, and as per NVRE, a deletion due to a lack of notability is inappropriate here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above - To clarify, one additional source here has been found that actually discusses the notion of a rivalry between these two teams as opposed to match reports and synthesis. It does make mention of a nascent rivalry, but places it firmly within a larger intra-city rivalry rather than being an in depth discussion of the specific rivalry between these two teams. In my opinion, more sources like this but in more depth need to be found in order to satisfy GNG as required by WP:NRIVALRY. Fenix down (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why does being part of a larger intra-city rivalry diminish the rivalry? To me that strengthens the notability of the article and proves that this article is notable. It's been shown that a rivalry exists, it's been shown that the rivalry existed before the matches begun, it's been shown that the rivalry has it's roots and basis in the larger cultural fabric of the city, and various guidelines like WP:NRVE & WP:WIP suggest that the article should be kept even though it's not perfect, because it is clearly notable and it's notability will improve with time to improve sources and simple time and events this subject references. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Err... because something doesn't have to be of any significant size to be part of something greater. That's just common sense. Anyway, as per WP:NRVE, as you seem so keen to mention random guidelines, please state the reliable sources that discuss the rivalry in detail. This is what I have kept asking you to do and you have failed to provide any other than the one discussed above which is in the context of a wider geographical rivalry. WP:WIP is irrelevant as an essay not a guideline, particularly as this article has been deleted once already due to lack of notability only a short time ago. Also, could you please stop using weasel words in your comments to try to add weight to you argument? The article is not "clearly notable" otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Fenix down (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply - Because the existence of a cultural rivalry between the East and West of a large metropolitan area does not mean that all subsequent matches, games or rivalries between teams that happen to be geographically divided by East and West are notable. There are teams from the East and teams from the West in the NSW Super League. That doesn't mean we can justify an article for each combination of East vs. West from that league just because they are potentially "part of a larger intra-city rivalry". What we need, per WP:GNG, is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that talk about the rivalry or derby itself, not vague and potentially related cultural rivalries. In the same way as other things, rivalries don't inherit notability from other rivalries. Stalwart111 11:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This rivalry between the Wanderers and Sydney FC has been well reported in the newspapers in Australia in which the matches between these two are actual rivalry matches and derbys ([1], [2], [3]). However, there is also plenty of sources to suggest that this is more than just a match between two teams. In fact there was fan unrest and hooliganism between the two sets of fans last season ([4], [5], [6]). So I think it is obvious that this is more than just a match between two local sides. In fact it is a major rivalry which both includes the players and the fans going at it. So yes, this page deserves to stay up. There is enough sources and merit to prove that there is a rivalry here between these two. Cheers.--ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately there are the following issues with the sources you note which are symptomatic of the issues with the article as a whole. the first one specifically mentions that it is only four months since they started playing each other, a rivalry worthy of its own article cannot possibly have developed in that time. The artilce itself does not add anything to the notability of any rivalry anyway as it is merely a brief bit of speculation on what two teams might be feeling. The one quote in the article doesn't mention rivalry at all. the second one is of even less use as it is a match report and like many of the sources, it does not discuss the rivalry in any way in any depth but is used to synthesise a rivalry. the third source is of no use whatsoever, as it is premptive article discussing the prospect of a rivalry (and only briefly at that before the teams had even played). the fourth source is very brief, hardly in depth, does not discuss rivalry between the two sides, just a small bit of unpleasant behaviour, the type of which happens between fans of most teams at some point. The fifth source is not a reliable source as it is essentially an interview with the head of a group of fans of Sydney Wanderers and indeed talks more about the group of fans that it does to any significant length about rivalry between the two clubs. The final source appears to be about exactly the same minor event as the fourth source and so does not add to any GNG case. There still is a significant lack of sources being presented that discuss the rivalry that supposedly exists between the two clubs. Everything presented is barely above trivial and the reason for that is that this is a pair of clubs that have met a grand total of three times. Undoubtedly there is a good chance that a genuine, and reliably documented rivalry will develop, but this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Your right. I just tried looking at a bunch of other pages about rivalries like the Tottenham-Arsenal one, all the way to the Red Bulls-DC United one. Makes sense. Currently there is not enough information to show that this deserves a stand-alone article. However, I do feel that this could be a "searchable rivalry" so instead of making it 1 page itself, lets merge it into A-League and create a section for different, sourced rivalries. Once this gets old enough and intense, then we can add the article. So ya, I switch to Merge with A-League. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I actually think that this is a good idea as long as any merge was managed in terms of length. There seems to be little doubt, given the youthful nature of almost all the rivalries, it is difficult to see how they are individually notable. However, there does seem to be nascent rivalries in a number of places and a genuine effort to hype non-existent rivalries as part of their business plan. Until there are significant reliable sources that actually discuss the rivalry, this would probably be the best place for such content. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually there is already a section for this here so I think all we need to do is just de-link the unnotable rivalries. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what none of the keep crowd has managed to explain is what has changed since this was deleted by clear community consensus last year. It was deleted but userfied and a non-admin moved it back into mainspace within a couple of months having determined, "it is now notable enough". That's not really how WP is supposed to work and it was done with a distinct lack of a formal submission or WP:DRV process. Consensus can change, of course, but nobody has bothered to explain that it has or how and it ends up looking very much like people are trying to "game" the system. Stalwart111 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! I did not even notice that this was the 2nd nomination. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The various Australian sport projects take a very inclusionist approach to notability for rivalries. Taking a look at Sydney_Derby_(AFL) or QClash for example, those pages are even less sourced, and the 'rivalries' are completely synthetic and manufactured marketing gimmicks for sports that aren't popular in those cities involving a team in each that have only existed for a few seasons, with no notable sources to speak off (the AFL Sydney Derby page even says that it doesn't measure up to other rivalries), and the games are blowouts in favour of one team. I wasn't involved with bringing the page back (although it was on my user page) and I had assumed an actual admin had done it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF makes no difference to this discussion. Perhaps they will be nominated in the same way at some point. Fenix down (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted reasons, I gave them to you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the "non-admin" who moved the article back into mainspace after recreation almost a year ago, the reason given in the previous "delete" decision was "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". [my emphasis added] I moved it back AFTER the "potential match" had happened and I saw that IMO there was sufficient coverage. Which is why I'm voting keep now. No "gaming" of the system was involved, and as an experienced editor, I find that accusation a bit offensive. I did the move to show the article creator that there wasn't any AFL v A-League bias and as a gesture of respect and reconciliation. This doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, a WP:Battleground. The-Pope (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't meant to be offensive - it was meant to prompt those who have supported keeping this to explain why we should be ignoring previous consensus and overturning that decision. That's what needs to be understood here - this has already been deleted. One game does not a "derby" (multiples of the same game) make, and there seems to be agreement (even from the keep crowd) that there is a distinct lack of significant coverage (their argument, instead, being that this rivalry should be allowed to inherit an existing city-wide rivalry). Consensus had been determined. Rather than challenging that consensus or the close itself, the article was simply recreated. In fact, there were five fairly minor edits between userfication and recreation and it would probably have qualified, at that stage, for speedy deletion as the recreation of a AFD-deleted article. Now I've recreated previously deleted articles before, don't get me wrong, but the issue here is that we're back at AFD discussing the same issues; talking about the same lack of coverage. If this were at DRV the closure and deletion would likely be endorsed. So why shouldn't we just be calling for this to be speedy closed? Stalwart111 06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first reason given for deletion is no longer valid, the 2nd and 3rd are up for debate, that's why. Who's to know if all 3 reasons were equal in the closer's reasoning, or was the first one the primary reason? The article wasn't technically recreated, it was userfied (by the deletor) and then re-moved by me. The-Pope (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Technically", the first reason for deletion was, "there is a clear consensus for deletion here". I don't think you'll get far with your "article wasn't technically recreated" - of course it was. It was userfied without a redirect (deleted), which was the result of the AFD, and an almost identical article was moved to that title a couple of months later. If anything, its an even more blatant style of recreation because you simply moved the old content back to the same title with little-to-no improvement, effectively reverting the AFD result. If you want to test the closer's reasoning or the technicality of the deletion, take it to DRV. It might have been done in good faith, but it was bad process. Stalwart111 23:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well noted rivalry in Australia. It seems this surpasses notability guidelines (BigSoc (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

So where are the sources. QUite few people have made this point, but not one has been able to show significant reliable sources that discuss the rivalry in depth. Fenix down (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is your responsibility. A few of these should do, let alone any from SBS, ABC or News Corp sources. The-Pope (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, we have evidence (from only one major newspaper) of anticipation of the derby being created, comparison to other derbies worldwide, tickets selling out in minutes: "The cross-town rivalry has already emerged as one of Australian football's hottest tickets" and more anticipation of the event: "This is the derby, and how we have waited for this moment...this game was the one thing we looked forward to more than anything else." It's a rivalry, it's an event, it's got significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the first source is from before both the teams even existed, it is a purely speculative article about how great it would be to have a rivalry, it does not discuss the rivalry in any depth, because it could not possibly exist at the time! The second source is not a reliable source, it is interviews with players involved hyping up the match. This source is about a game selling out, this shows only that this game was popular, the article does not discuss the rivalry that supposedly exists between the two sides to any degree, simply that two teams based near each other sold out a game. This happens all the time and does not indicate a rivalry in itself. The final source is again as you say, anticipatory, it does not inherently discuss that a rivalry exists between the two teams as they hadn't even played each other at this point. For the record, this is what a substantial, reliable article, that actually discusses a genuine rivalry between two teams looks like. There is simply nothing like this for this rivalry because it simply doesn't exist to any degree that would satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Close to Keep Article: Can this be closed now? There is clearly no consensus (an even 50/50 split between keep and delete), the article has already been massively improved in such a short period of time. The argument in favour of deletion isn't strong, and only exists because the nominator failed to follow the WP:BEFORE rule. This debate gone on long enough, I request a close and for this article to be protected from future unwarranted AFD debates. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count votes. Quality of argument is what counts. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes are a simple representation of consensus, and a 50/50 split is pretty obviously a representation of non-consensus. Not to mention the poor arguments and failure to follow basic guidelines like WP:BEFORE. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes don't count, and your comments such as "poor arguments" are inherently pov. WP:BEFORE doesn't count here as this is a second nomination after a deletion when nothing has been perceived to have changed materially. There have been discussions on both sides and opinions made clear, if you want a decision to be made might I suggest that you stop posting, particularly when all you are doing now is making pov comments regarding how weak / strong the different sides of the argument are, which it is not your job to do. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macktheknifeau - you came to my Talk page to play silly bugger games on this. Seemingly on the basis that, as you accused many in the Soccer in Australia discussion, you think anyone who disagrees with you is biased towards AFL and against the A-League, you asked if I thought Sydney Derby_AFL should be deleted. I agreed with you that it should. I think that surprised you, and you stopped bothering me there. But this demonstrates that your approach is not one of looking at the quality of argument, but all about thinking that everyone is commenting here on the basis of biases. Your comments after losing your argument at Soccer in Australia, insisting that it was decided on the basis of you being swamped by AFL supporters, support this view. It's time for you to grow up, look a little more widely at discussions on Wikipedia (there's a lot of articles about many other things than soccer and Aussie Rules), and think about the quality of YOUR argument. Keeping nonsensical articles does NOT make soccer stronger in Australia. It just makes its fans look silly, and, if anything, probably damages the game. So no, we DON'T count votes. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.