Deletion of 2010 ANZAC Test

Comment: Despite how well written and referenced the article is, I really can't see how this goes beyond a routine scheduled sports match with coverage exactly as described in  and . There was nothing outstanding about the game itself. The only claim to notability seems to be that it was the first event in a new stadium. Given that, I would have thought brief mention in the article on the stadium should cover it, or am I missing something
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: Does the nominator have any reasoning for the bald assertion that the test is not notable? No reference is made in the nomination to any policy or guideline. No reference is made to the multitude of references in the article demonstrating this to be a match that received wall-to-wall sports media coverage over a substantial period of time, particularly before the match. The match is considered so significant that the announcement of the venue months in advance gets coverage in national media.http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/christchurch-to-host-anzac-test-20100605-xm1h.html This match did not receive routine coverage of the kind described in  or . It is an annual event between two of the three best rugby league national teams in the world. It was also notable for being the first even ever held at Melbourne's AAMI Park (which the article notes). These kinds of tests are rare: there are only two or three test played every year between Australia, New Zealand and England. In short, this appears to be a drive-by nomination: the thought put into it certainly appears disproportionate to the work that multiple editors put into the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: meets  and as per all the reasons mentioned by Mkativerata. Not sure why this was nominated
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This strikes me as a good-faith nomination, but I'm afraid it should probably be withdrawn.  This is a well written and well referenced article, and the event meets the |general notability guideline, and the ports event|relevant specific notability guideline.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:S)

Comment: all the parts of the argument of Mkativerata - and understanding  and  am restrained from making further comment - (however well intentioned the nomination was - the cultural aspects are such - no matter however few matches occur - how seriously the New Zealanders take their rugby - to suggest to nominate a delete of one of their matches...hmmm
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:CIVILITY)