Deletion of QClash (2nd nomination)

Comment: Its irrelevant what we as editors think of the rivalry or its origins the fact remains that it is given weight by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, with media reporting the Qclash both before and after the events including its effect on the participants. A very simple search shows it meets  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-21/suns-fall-short-in-q-clash/4145778 http://www.sportal.com.au/afl-news-display/voss-encourages-q-clash-spite-187777 as per  ''consensus by a limited group of editors(see ) cannot override the wider communities consensus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LOCALCONSENSUS||WP:NRIVALRY)

Comment: passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Very detailed nomination article, but there is only one small problem.  It is not just a rivalry article.  It's an  article.  And the event is covered in more detail, with more historical importance (win-loss records are recorded and remembered much more than most other results), with awards (for both the winning team and best player) being given for this match only and a bigger buildup than most other football matches, more than enough to satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:GNG)

Comment: The article says in the first line: "The QClash is the name given to the Australian rules football rivalry match between the Brisbane Lions and Gold Coast Suns". I don't see how it could be considered a  when the article itself says it's a rivalry.  is about breaking news events and the sporting version of an 'event' is shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_sports_events Current Sports Events. Those shown are annual competition events (2012 Guzzini Challenger, 2012 Swedish Open, 2012 Tour de France etc) and not fixtures in sporting leagues. This topic clearly falls under the  guideline and not . It fails  as that guideline states that ''in addition'' to general notability a rivalry topic '''must''' show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources. Searching has failed to find non-trivial, reliable, independent sources that show the importance of the rivalry, and instead has found ''multiple sources that show why the rivalry is not important''. While a newspaper writer can create an article about how the rivalry is not important, we at Wikipedia do not create articles about non-important rivalries. This is a non-important rivalry
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:EVENT||WP:NRIVALRY||WP:EVENT||WP:NRIVALRY)

Comment: Satisfies , seems notable enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: My point was that even though this rivalry match fails under the  policy, another user tried to argue it was in fact a  (in effect trying to get a |'change of venue' to render the entire debate invalid via a technicality). I pointed out that not only does it fail  it also fails most if not all of the tenets of , making the  attempt at the |policy shopping invalid anyway (just like the attempt at policy shopping with  appears invalid). I am not 'demanding' international coverage, only pointing it out as one minor part of the requirements for passing . Secondly, none of those articles have anything to do with why the rivalry is important only that the fixture exists
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRIVALRY||WP:EVENT||WP:PS||WP:NRIVALRY||WP:EVENT||WP:LAWYERING||WP:PS||WP:LOCALCONSENSUS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: For exactly the same reasons as the first AfD. Nothing new has been brought to the attention of Wikipedia. Simply a re-iteration of previous claims that were proven unfounded. Should add that two more independent sources have been added since this nomination.  and  has been fulfilled
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG)