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. Secret ^account 01:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Derby (Australia)[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 making this look more like WP:CRUFT than a genuine rivalry. Only two of the sources provided mention this game as a derby (and only one as the M1 Derby). There seems to be no events surrounding these games bar the matches themselves that indicate any rivalry worthy of note other than geographical proximity. As Gold Coast United no longer compete in the A-League it seems unlikely that this rivalry could develop beyond this embryonic stage. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry. Giant Snowman 09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, request early close through Snowball Clause. The nominator (who is Russian and clearly has no knowledge of the subject) has blindly nominated several related articles without bothering to discuss the pages (violating the WP:BEFORE rule). His concerns could easily have been sorted if he had taken them to the talk page, and efforts made to improve the article before any deletion request should be considered under the AFD guidelines. A notable geographic rivalry is still a rivalry and as such, his viewpoint that the article is cruft is unfounded, there is no requirement in WP:GNG for any 'incidents' (what sort of incidents? This is utterly subjective weasel wording), the article has several reliable sources and completely passes WP:GNG thus making it an acceptable article. The charge that the article cannot be notable because one of the teams no longer competes would violate WP:NTEMP, which shows that a notable article is notable regardless of timescale. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 10:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's nothing to indicate this was a notable rivalry and it's obviously going to be difficult for any future rivalry to generate the significant coverage in reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG because one of the teams no longer exists. Stalwart111 12:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per Snowball Clause and WP:NTEMP raised by Macktheknifeau. Ck786 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please show the sources that reliably and in depth cover the rivalry that supposedly exists. Currentyy the article is a |synthesis of match reports. WP:NRIVALRY clearly shows the requirement that WP:GNG is met. So far not a single source has been provided that actially discusses the supposed rivalry. WP:NTEMP only applies after GNG is met and WP:SNOWBALL is irrelevant as there is not unanimous agreement for your point of view. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Article makes distinct reference to the rivalry. Ck786 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, as pointed one team no longer exists, and had only existed for approx 4 years before going away. RS note a "derby" but nothing seems to mention the M1 Derby, making it seem like this is possibly a term only used by a few. Caffeyw (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' - as previously mentioned, the fact that one team does not exist, doesn't mean the article isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.218.26 (talk) 00:45, 28 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.