Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guinness R.F.C.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 14:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness R.F.C.[edit]

Guinness R.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was going to say DELETE WP:NN but I notice that WikiProject Ireland have assessed it at START class. Does this make a difference?Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter what the quality rating is, the importance would be more relevant. It is slightly arbitrary in any case. Anyone can change the rating and the criteria vary between people and projects. AIRcorn (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep  "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nominator thinks that the article is notable.  As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nominator has not advanced a reason for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies.  As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It refers to a functional rugby club in Dublin, Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetfahy (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Regarding the edit to the nomination, WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

  • ...
  • Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
    • ...
    • An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.
Unscintillating (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep. On the merits, I'm not sure that this Rugby team is notable - it is indeed a professional team operating in Ireland, but does it play at the "highest level" required for a sports team to be considered notable? I don't know. I do believe, however, that this debate isn't going to produce a usable consensus, and thus should be closed on a procedural basis. If questions about the nomination, and about the nominator, can be addressed, perhaps this can be re-nominated in short order with a proper initial rationale and no bias-inferring questions about automated AFD nominations. Hell, I might put in a Delete in that new debate. But not this one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its not a professional team Gnevin (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could I suggest that WikiProject Rugby Union take a look at their notability criteria for clubs, as point 2 could be used to justify the inclusion of any affiliated club in a major Rugby-playing nation. If that's the idea, fine, but I think it might need tightening up. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was what was decided. It was the consensus of three people from one project so is hardly binding. The point of the guidelines is to aid these discussions not to be a substitute for general notability. It could do with more discussion, but no one else seemed interested. AIRcorn (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only found a few match reports. No significant coverage. AIRcorn (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guinness_R.F.C.&oldid=1136743938"