Deletion of Sydney Derby (A-League)

Comment: Looking at the references provided in the article there are none which cover the "Sydney Derby" in any kind of depth, they just saw that it will exist. As such, this fails . I think that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: With a dozen improved references this article clearly passes ,  and is an acceptable topic under . The event in question has ''significant coverage'' from reliable sources that are independent from the subject. I also note that not one attempt was made to improve the article nor was any discussion made in the talk page before the article was put up for a deletion request. Under  this is a bad faith deletion request as a deletion request should be a last resort ''after'' a good faith effort is made to find references. For this article the ''Refimprove'' tag was placed merely an hour before the deletion request was made
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT||WP:CBALL||WP:N)

Comment: This subject fails . The sources cited in the article, most of which deal primarily with the publication of the fixture list for the coming season, talk quite a bit about the second Sydney club having neither a confirmed name nor a home ground as at time of publication. They do mention the word "derby" in connection with the match between the new and pre-existing Sydney clubs, but that's pretty well it. That doesn't constitute multiple independent significant, i.e. ''non-trivial'' sources for the notability of that game. Further, as has been said above, there's more to a sports rivalry than two teams from the same city playing each other, even when they've actually done so.  requires not only general notability, but "additionally must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources." This article doesn't, because it can't: no derby has yet taken place. If it does, and if it becomes a "rivalry" in the true sense of the word, then there'll be plenty of sources to illustrate why it matters. As of now, there aren't. cheers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NRIVALRY)

Comment: Just to appease those who aren't satisifed, I've expanded the article and included more notable references that specifically mention the rivalry and it's importance despite not having taken place yet. I think it's time to shut down this deletion debate, as it now completely and utterly satisfies all aspects of /, RIVALRY and . Any contrary viewpoint is just stubbornness, bias and a refusal to see what's in front of them and an attempt to wikilawyer a legitimate article off the website
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:NRIVALRY||WP:CBALL)

Comment: Did you even bother reading my comment, I acknowledge that the event is certain to happen so there is no need to restate part 1 of . I'm not debating the fact there going to play each other (so stop going on about it) that seems be your only defence. Playing each other doesn't mean there is going to be a legitimate rivalry. Part 3 of  states articles that present original research in the form of "future history" are inappropriate therefore it's in violation of . The only one being ignorant is you. Attacking editors isn't going to get you anywhere it's just a deflection tactic you created an article on a non-existent rivalry that you don't know if it's going to come to fruition only that their going play each other. &#9733;&#9734
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CBALL||WP:CBALL||WP:CBALL)

Comment: Neither HiLo or Hack or Oalexander have given any legitimate reason as to why the article should be deleted. It demonstrably meets , , RIVALRY ''and'' , the original deletion request was made in bad faith by users who failed to give the article any time at all to find better sources and as such I once again move that this be given a  speedy keep and those users involved in the bad faith deletion process be blocked from editing the page in the future
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:NRIVALRY||WP:CBALL||WP:SK)

Comment: So many people completely ignoring wiki guidelines. I should hope the administrators aren't swayed by people too ignorant to read the appropriate guidelines, , , RIVALRY and , all of which show this article is notable and should not be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:NRIVALRY||WP:CBALL)

Comment: It now has a dozen references (after you failed to give anyone time to add any to the article before placing it up for deletion). As per  it is a notable series of events that are certain to happen. ''Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place''. This event is both notable and certain to happen. ''A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.'' A schedule of events is appropriate as the dates are verifiable and certain to happen
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CBALL)

Comment: : ''Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.'' This event is both notable and certain to happen. ''A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.'' A schedule of events is appropriate as the dates are verifiable and certain to happen. Another vote that ignores that the article is perfectly acceptable under , , RIVALRY ''and'' , despite statements to the contrary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:NRIVALRY||WP:CBALL)

Comment: spaced ndash}} because the topic clearly meets Wikipedia's |General notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)