Deletion of Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09

Comment: Classic . The crux of my argument is that yes, there is no doubt Sydney New Year's Eve as an '''event franchise''' is notable, and other notable New Year's celebrations have articles. But they don't have individualized articles for each edition like it's a sporting event, since they are very routine and rigidly structured, and they often do not have enough variance to even have distinctive articles (any difference between editions, especially if it a specific tradition such as the bridge effects, can be easily covered in a relevant section of the parent article). The General Notability Guideline (GNG) is only a ''presumption'' of notability, and Events wikipedia:Notability (events)|have their own specific notability criteria based on consensus. In particular, Notable events "usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle" and must receive "significant or in-depth coverage". It is clear based on other criteria that the event ''as an annual event'' meets the notability criteria. However, a specific instance of the event in a specific year does not, because it only receives coverage during the news cycle immediately around New Year's Eve, and this coverage only constitutes "routine" coverage that, alone, is not enough to justify an entirely separate article. It's like how television series often do not have articles for individual episodes unless they have been proven to be critically notable in their own right
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: except that "nothing worthwhile" is not Wikipedia policy supporting deletion. It's just . What policy does it breach
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)