Would the closer please explain his close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The sources, which say that the two teams are "developing a rivalry," prove notability just as well as news articles which show two countries developing bilateral relations because the leader of one of them visited the other country. If they continue to have a major rivalry, sure. But until then, WP:CRYSTAL. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: can we temp undelete this, so I can see what the AfD was about? — Charles Stewart(talk) 07:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin The arguments based on the premise that with so little interaction between these teams due to the distance and age issues, it was natural that it would not pass sourcing for the broadly defined topic of a rivalry between two teams, were convincing. I suspect that if more series are are played between the teams in the future, and an actual rivalry develops, sources will be created. But I don't really know enough about the topic to predict more than that. MBisanztalk 08:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, seems like a rough consensus to me. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Closer made correct call. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Rklear and his four sources, which are actually good sources for supporting notability, being independent, discussing the subject (the rivalry), and not failing the NOTNEWS catch, with dates: June 5, 2008; Oct. 9, 2008; October 9, 2008; October 19, 2008. Mstuczynski drew attention to this, and while several participants (including commenters) had criticism, they did not argue that outright deletion was required, with Magnetic Rag promising to make improvements. I guess that the closer was unduly. though understandably, influenced by the weakness of the other two keep !votes and the fact that among so many participants, only one made a good keep !vote. MBisanz explanation above, in failing to refer to Rklear, suggests to me that the most important !vote was lost in the noise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a clean "keep", with significant editorial work remaining, including a likely rename or merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – while I very well would have !voted keep in the AFD, I must respect the rough consensus for deletion here. If someone wants to do a cleanup job and merge any remaining information to other pages, then I won't object to any userfication in that respect. MuZemike 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
