Talk:QClash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article content questionable[edit]

I'm sorry, but the subject matter is not notable as per WP:N. There has been no history between the clubs to develop any rivalry, let alone a name for the invisible rivalry. There are some true rivalries in the game that have been alive for over 100 years (Coll & Carl, Ess & Carl, Carl & Rich, Coll & Ess, etc, etc) and none of these have been assigned names. The balance within the subject matter as per WP:NPOV is highly questionable and extraordinarily suspect with regards to the potential manufacturing a rivalry that does not exist. I would usually refer to myself as an exopedian, but I cannot recommend anything but deletion for this article. Nick carson (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be considered notable because it has been heavy publicised in the media as the 'QClash', and more importantly, it will continue to occur in the future. By the way, there are currently pages for all of the above rivalries, which you can find at [[Category:Australian Football League rivalries]]. Most of the clashes mentioned above do have trophies for the winner of the game eg. Richard Pratt Cup for the winner of Carlton and Collingwood but these name are less well-known and/or publicised as they have only been inaugurated in recent years. Cheers, IgnorantArmies 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this conversation - the article still does not have any independent sources. This fails WP:NRIVALRY which requires that the article meets WP:GNG and "show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources". Hack (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table format[edit]

Going to try out what I think is cleaner and more attractive table format for the game list. Feel free to discuss it here. The Frederick (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's QClash ![edit]

I've heard several mentions of this in the media over the past few days. The ONLY name I have heard is QClash, not Queensland Clash. The source says "...to be known also in its abbreviated form as QClash".

While quite frankly I see both names as quite silly, I'm not a marketer, so I'll go with the common name QClash. Nobody is calling it Queensland Clash. So, sorry to do this so early in its life, but I'm calling for a move to QClash.

HiLo48 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to replicate marketing or media hype. This is an encyclopedia! We're only interested in reality, and reality is there is no history between these clubs, no rivalry exists. I'm moving to have the article deleted. Nick carson (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Notable Topic?[edit]

As discussed earlier this topic appears to be non-notable. It fails WP:N due to failing WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. The article itself as a result of this lack of notability looks to be little more than listcruft, fancruft and marketing spiel for a fixture with two teams from the same state that the league marketing department is trying to invent a rivalry for where none actually exists. It might become notable as a rivalry in the future, but that would be mere speculation.

This article is currently tagged as lacking references from July, but the talk page shows this concern has existed since early 2011. A rivalry topic must have significant coverage, from reliable, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. In addition to the topic's basic GNG notability, WP:NRIVALRY states the article must also show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial reliable sources.

The current article reference list is comprised of 9 references:

1 is non-independent and does not show why the rivalry is important.
2 is a non-independent press release. It does not show why the rivalry is important.
3 is a footnote.
4 is a non-independent match report. It does not show why the rivalry is important.
5 is a non-independent match report. It does not show why the rivalry is important.
6 is a non-independent match report. It does not show why the rivalry is important.
7 is a duplicate of 5.
8 is a non-independent match report. It does not show why the rivalry is important.
9 is a footnote.

As such the article in it's current state does not pass either guideline..

A google books search finds only 2 potential references. The first is titled "Book Of Footy Lists". Only one reference exists for QClash and only to say that the first fixture happened. The second is a book called "The Rise Of the Suns" by Campbell Brown and contains one chapter on the first match of this fixture. However, Campbell Brown is an AFL player for the Gold Coast Suns and as such is not a reliable, independent source.

Google News discovered 16 results. None of these provide any information about why this rivalry is important. Most are pre or post game match reports, injury reports, non-independent, or trivial references in articles with a larger focus.

Various generic Google Searches (ie Qclash, Qclash rivalry, qclash importance and so on) have the same issues as the Google News search. Results are fan-written, non-reliable, non-independent, pre or post game match reports from specific fixtures and none show why this rivalry is in any way notable beyond it's marketing gimmick origins. One article comments specifically on why this 'rivalry' is not important and that the AFL cannot manufacture a rivalry simply by naming the fixture. Bing and Yahoo searches return the same problems.

It seems quite conclusive to me that this topic is non-notable. It does not pass WP:GNG and especially does not pass WP:NRIVALRY. I agree with User:Hack that this article fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG, and also with User:nick carson who previously suggested a move to delete the article. Despite a confirmation that having a single AFD in progress would not be considered 'disruptive' I will leave this open for another editor to nominate the article should they agree with my findings on the article. If no editor steps forward I will then nominate it myself. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify about the refs, from the beginning of this year, the AFL and club websites have been run by a new AFL media group who claim to be editorially independent of the AFL. See this Media Watch interview about the organisation. If you believe Jeff Kennett, however, there are no independent journalists reporting on AFL at all! I don't really have a view yet on the rivalry issue other than noting that rivalry is just one aspect of the article and you could argue it is better covered by WP:EVENT as it is more about the matches not the rivalry. The-Pope (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I watched that media watch piece when it was first released, the implications could be unpleasant in the future for the media organisations that cover the AFL. The wikipedia guidelines for WP:N say: '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.'. The AFL Marketing team and it's Media arm all employed by the AFL, as such they are 'affiliated' with the AFL and shouldn't be considered 'independent' in my view. As for WP:EVENT, I see that as being for individual notable events. This is a series of fixtures in a sporting league that are being claimed to be a rivalry. EVENT seems geared more towards (in this context) an individual fixture that is particularly notable on it's own for example 2006 AFL Grand Final. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still at this, Mack? Come on! Rivalries like this are inherently important (and therefore notable) to the AFL when there are only two clubs in a region - this also applies to the Sydney Derby as well as Showdown and the Western Derby. The link to the AFL website is independant of the subject (only the Lions links aren't because it's an involved club). To say otherwise....well I could say what that indicates, but I'd be sailing close to the wind per WP:CIVIL. Just knock it off okay? If you wouldn't mind? Footy Freak7 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, a rivalry isn't inherently important or notable. Read WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY for an introductory guide to notability on wikipedia. I pointed out above why the AFL can't be considered independent. The AFL has a clear Conflict Of Interest in reporting on it's own league and teams and thus cannot be called independent by any stretch of the imagination. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they are independent, at least from this year. You mightn't like it, believe it or trust it but just like we still consider the ABC acceptable when reporting on the federal govt our even The Australian or the WSJ when reporting on News Corp there is a thing called journalistic editorial independence and to equate them to a marketing division is insulting to the journos who work there. The-Pope (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N requires reliable third-party sources. The writers for the AFL media-marketing arm are paid and funded by the AFL, under the banner of the AFL, on the 'afl.com' website. They are reporting on their own company, they are paid by the same company, and they write about their companies own league and the team's that participate in it. However, I will create a notice on the Reliable Source Noticeboard about your objection to considering the AFL.com staff as non-independent. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pope I think Mack is still butthurt over the rejection of the Sydney soccer derby article being rejected. He's trying to apply the same standard to these without realising that AFL far more coverage than the A-League and automatic notability under both WP:N and WP:GNG (something the A-League doesn't have), and is making excuses. For that reason I think he should be ignored until he shows an acceptance of the fact and leaves these articles alone. Footy Freak7 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as inherent notability and the same standards apply to all. You've been told this several times, you don't seem to be accepting that facts here at all. You are also pushing WP:CIVIL as well, I ask you to refrain from further personal attacks. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2012
Surprise, surprise, a 20 second search on the Fairfax and Courier Mail sites has found a few refs on each, even some focusing on the rivalry. Mack still doesn't seem to understand that these articles aren't GA/FA level and can be improved by what else is out there.The-Pope (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which proves my point! Thanks, Pope! He should work on improving the articles instead of tagging if there's an issue and leaving it to others. The fact that he doesn't is worth pointing out along with the likely reason why - and that's nowhere near a violation of WP:CIVIL. Case closed. Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources do nothing to help this article pass WP:NRIVALRY in regards to showing why this rivalry is notable with non-trivial sources. Those sources in that search merely confirm that the fixture exists like any other fixture in the AFL has. The sources in those searches include a source about a Hawthorn game, that the Suns won a game, that the stadium wants an 'international' rules game, a match report, a source saying the 'rivalry' is 'confected' (perhaps meant to be concocted?), another match report, a match preview, a stats page, another preview, another preview, a match report, a judiciary report and finally report that states a true rivalry doesn't exist. Nothing proves this rivalry is notable. In fact there is more evidence pointing to a conclusion that this rivalry is invented, isn't important and is a marketing gimmick. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are biased and should remove yourself from the debate. Footy Freak7 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's matches[edit]

First clash between the clubs was in 2016 in an exhibition game. This doesn't count?

2016 exhibition series
Saturday, 16 April Brisbane 5.8 (38) def. Gold Coast 3.6 (24) Gabba (crowd: 20,041 (D/H)) Match report

The report in media calls it a Q Clash.Bjcook (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:QClash&oldid=1212516739"