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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Derby (BBL)[edit]

Melbourne Derby (BBL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. This is a statistical rivalry only. Neither the article nor any sources give any explanation for how this is a culturally significant rivalry, and these seem to be been written on the false basis that a local derby is automatically notable.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Aspirex (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. When you regularly get more people attend a season AFL game that doesn't translate to automatic rivalry either. They are expecting 50,000 tonight between Adelaide and Sydney Sixers perhaps we need to create a rivalry article too based on attendance? LibStar (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the Sydney Derby had aready been up for deletion before being removed from the list. The buzz before the opening game this season (as a "Derby") had shown how much of it was "culturally" significant for Sydney. In Cricket, when people don't attend games, but then suddenly turn up in large numbers regularly for a match, that does tell something. Can't tell about the AFL in the same way, though. Karyasuman (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using your argument we should create an Adelaide Sydney Sixers rivalry article. To argue 20,000 attendance gives a free pass to notability is weak. State of Origin which is a 30 year rivalry gets minimum 70000 attendance LibStar (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 in a 20,000 capacity stadium is weak? Around 1 million watching it in metros is weak? Opening matches in BBL hardly get that, considering BBL only gets stronger crowd post-Christmas.--Karyasuman (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
50,000 today at Adelaide Oval is significant because of its establishment as a New-Year eve match, not because of the rivalry between Adelaide Strikers and Sydney Sixers. --Karyasuman (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No using your logic. Attendance greater than 20,000 = notable rivalry. Sydney Thunder moved from the 80,000 ANZ Stadium from previous seasons to a much smaller ground due to low attendances. Your argument about 20,000 in a smaller Stadium is flawed. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't they get lower attendances due to their own performance against other teams? They got much larger attendances during derby matches. Derby matches always break domestic attendances records and viewership here, including more media coverage compared to other BBL matches specially in Sydney. Last year too, they got the highest attendances for Derby matches. Karyasuman (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because derby matches involve fans of the same city? Only a very small number of fans would fly interstate for a match. So decreasing the stadium size increases the notable rivalry? LibStar (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating same city teams might have been CA's strategy. That might've been A-League's strategy too! Maybe both follow the same strategy. Occupying ANZ just for a single Derby match did actually seem funny, however. --Karyasuman (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
when 2 AFL teams from Melbourne play each other they always get higher attendance, that doesn't equate to notable rivalry. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And a mention on television and newspapers as "Melbourne Derby" too? BBL gets that. How many sources do you want? --Karyasuman (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the 20,000 attendance (in a city of 4.8 million with much larger Stadium literally next door ) was your criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that one is a criteria too (would easily have been 35,000+ this year at ANZ). Regularly increasing attendances in these matches do show how the rivalry is building. Moreover, I did say before that every notable media-site mentions these matches as "Derby matches". Do see above. --Karyasuman (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are making things totally up, 35000 plus attendance of they played at ANZ. How is that even credible when the Sixers have only achieved that I think once in the many seasons of BBL at the SCG. One day you're saying 20,000 is fantastic now you're saying it would easily be 35,000 if they had a bigger ground.LibStar (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said 20,000 in a 20,000 seater is fine! They moved to Spotless because other matches didn't attract good enough crowds for other matches except the Derby match (obviously due to performance reasons). As for the 35,000 argument, last year match at ANZ had attracted 31,262 (was a record at that time before the SCG Derby). The season before that, they had 25,000. Even before that season, 20,000 people had attended the Derby match. Karyasuman (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said 35,000 that's an exaggerated claim. If the thunder could get 35,000 most games based on your erroneous exaggerations they would not have moved right LibStar (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
let's just jack up estimated attendances by 75% to suit my argument. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they didn't attract big crowds FOR OTHER GAMES uptil last season! Didn't I state the reason for 35,000 crowd (although statistical) just before? Would you stay at ANZ for a single match during the whole season (which attracts bigger crowds)? How does not attracting bigger attendances for other games de-mean the Derby Matches? Karyasuman (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've still just plucked 35,000 out of thin air. The first "derby" was not a sell out it had 18297 people which is lower than ground capacity of 22,000. The highest BBL attendance in Sydney was about 32,000 last season. And that was not a sell out . To somehow extrapolate this and a non sell out of 18,000 to 35,000+ (an exaggeration of 91%) at a different venue is blatant misrepresentation. They didn't even achieve your notability mark of 20,000. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like people present here to search news on Google for Melbourne Derby as well as news on Google for Sydney Derby before concluding anything. Many media mentions, and they are still not notable? In-fact these matches are officially called derbies by CA. I have never seen a news report on these matches without being mentioned as derbies. It is surprising that some people still want to delete these articles, specially after Sydney Derby was earlier proposed for deletion, but was later removed from the list. Karyasuman (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes looking at the Melbourne and Sydney search , most of the results are for soccer not cricket. There's even one article calling Sydney fc vs central coast mariners a NSW derby and reference to horse racing derbies. How meaningless is the Derby term becoming. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most searche results might go for football, but the top search results go for Cricket, that means more people are seeing pages related to Cricket's derby rather than football. Maybe you need to talk to newspapers, magazines, cricket fans and Cricket Australia (or even horse racing fans in that case!) if you feel Derby term is starting to become meaningless? Karyasuman (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage:

I can give any amount of references to prove these matches are called nothing except the Derbies and that's what makes them more notable than other BBL matches. I would request the administrator to see merit in my views too and rule out deletion for these pages, and just not look at the number of heads present here. The main aim behind creating these teams were the Derby matches, and there's hardly any doubt that interest in these matches is increasing day by day (not only in Australia, but in parts of Asia as well as UK). I'm here to make Wikipedia more informative, with Cricket at the core. Karyasuman (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another post on how the coverage for the derbies is increasing day by day. Here's a preview everyone would like to see:
a primary source twitter account is not considered a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the newspaper clippings! Are newspapers personal? These are photos from the newspapers. :O And in-fact, see the excitement here in Melbourne for the derby. I would ask you to come down. Karyasuman (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More references:
WP:JUSTAVOTE. do you agree with the flawed estimation of 35,000+ attendance. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone would agree if they have some common sense, and some mathematical skills. Just wait to see this year's crowd at the Melbourne Derby (at the MCG and the Etihad) as well as Sydney Derby (at the SCG). Karyasuman (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
70,000+ already at the MCG today for the Melbourne Derby. Highest domestic crowd ever at a cricket match, beating previous record by atleast 20,000. As the Age journalist Jesse Hogan said, "Excluding World Cup, this 70k+ crowd is higher than past 23 ODIs/T20Is for Aus at @MCG. Threatening 84,041, T20I vs India in Feb 2008". Karyasuman (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, 80,000+ at the MCG now, 60,000 more than previous BBL game at the venue. Karyasuman (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said the first Sydney match of 20,000 in 20,000 stadium was great. It was in fact 18,000 in a 22,000 stadium . LibStar (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much for approximations, I, infact the whole sporting fraternity says 80,000 in a 100,000 capacity stadium is great. In case you didn't know, it was the sixth largest attendance EVER at the Spotless, watched by more than 1.5 million people in Australia. Karyasuman (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
using your exaggeration factor this would be 152,000 attendance. The sixth highest attendance at Spotless is irrelevant. The venue is not used regularly for any competitive sport in Sydney. The thunder are the first team to commit to all home games there , some think they even got 20,000 not 18,000 for their first match. LibStar (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exaggeration factor? :o What is that? Haha, 152,000? I was rounding that up in 10,000 - so that makes 18,287 crowd a 20,000 (just like I said 80,000 for MCG crowd). Did I say 81,000 for a 80,883 MCG crowd? Views which point something different to your ideas become irrelevant? Karyasuman (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out 35,000 like this (as said above, it was a statistical calculation) -

Can you understand now? How many times do I need to say the same point. Karyasuman (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one predicts stadium attendances on an incremental fashion like that by simply adding differences. If that were true they wouldn't have moved to Spotless stadium and then they'll get 40000 in 06 and 45000 in 07. It is pure speculation to predict attendances in that manner as noted below it doesn't demonstrate notability except that you try to invent statistics to exaggerate attendance. Next thing you'll round up an attendance of 15,000 to 20,000. This AfD is clearly heading to delete as should be LibStar (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They moved to the Spotless because they didn't get large attendances in OTHER matches (NOT involving the DERBY teams), as I had already said before. I won't restate my comments going on like a round-robin. Thank god, at-least your mind could get the logic behind. Perhaps you could follow BBL more closely, then 35,000 would have hardly looked like an exaggeration. -_- Karyasuman (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Could I respectfully suggest the two of you cease this specific line of argument about crowd numbers, or take it to a different forum? It's clear from the discussion to date that there's no chance you'll be agreeing on the matter; and, it is irrelevant to this AfD since the WP:GNG states that notability is based on what is stated about the rivalry in references, not based on any Wikipedians' interpretation of what raw crowd numbers or audience numbers or other real-world statistical measure counts as notable. Aspirex (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Look, even the foreign Kiwi media emphasized on the term Local Melbourne Derby in their article. So what more proofs do we need to conclude that IT IS a derby?? *The term 'derby' mentioned in the Kiwi media too Arka 92 12:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Nobody in this AfD has ever tried to argue that the game is not a derby, nor that the names Melbourne Derby and Sydney Derby are not in use. The point is that a rivalry does not become WP:NOTABLE simply because it has a name. Aspirex (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point. Check those news links. They are more widely discussed as a rivalry than the currently existing CSK-MI and CSK-RCB rivalries are discussed in the media. I think you guys are just overseeing the true notability factors as it is very popular in media right now and being pessimistic. Arka 92 09:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a problem? I invited him because he was the one who brought this article into discussion. You can see it here. Karyasuman (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it's definitely WP:CANVASS. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given Itz Arka's prior involvement in a 'should it exist?' discussion about this page he has a right to be notified. But you need to be more careful with the way you invite people to AfDs, because "I need a bit of help" sounds like canvassing. Aspirex (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think he is CANVASSing here, because I was the person who mentioned on the talk page of cricket a month or two ago whether these two new articles can be recreated or not given the fact that it is widely discussed in the media nowadays. I Karyasuman didnt ask for a keep vote rather asked me to involve in this discussion. Anyone can ask anyone to involve in a discussion unless he or she is exclusively asking for a support vote. Arka 92 09:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have something to suggest. As these derbies are popular but most people here are strongly going against these articles, then if we have to delete these articles in the end of the discussion, why not to make a sub-column under the Big Bash League article within a column called rivalries briefly mentioning about these two slowly developing rivalries and giving the list of the matches between them with the hide and show options for the tables. Also we can add the Adelaide-Sixers rivalry as someone suggested up here in the discussion. If we really are to delete these articles, then why to delete the facts and info? Although I am for the motion of keeping them but if we finally have to delete it, then let's mention them briefly in the main article of BBL. So if in future these derbies become some serious rivalries, then we can make a separate article (if required). Arka 92 12:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That means you haven't read those articles properly. Arka 92 18:54, 4 January 2016 (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.
More