Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rugby union players banned for eye gouging

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 no consensus. However, a merge discussion on the article's talk page is encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an an opponent

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an ill defined list that has been split into two tables in an attempt to downplay some bans that are not gouging but "contact with the eye or eye area". As shown in talk page, there is no such offence as eye gouging in the laws and regulations only contact with the eye or eye area. No other lists of players banned for other offences exists and the ill defined nature of what should be included or not makes limits the usefulness of this page. noq (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well I think the main body of the nomination is that the table with the contact with the eyes, would there be any objection to the removal of the non-gouging table? There's no need to delete the whole list. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But how would you define the criteria for inclusion? What should be in the list and what does not belong? If that cannot be defined, the list should go. noq (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that there appears to be no defined criteria, the article name is incorrect, plus there is no other article in any other sport that is equivalent. List of doping cases in sport, is the closest I have found. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list with unclear inclusion criterion, and dubious subject in the first place (WP:NOTDIR somewhere between loosely associated topics or non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (Rugby and eye gouging))--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not believe that this list is at all encyclopaedic. The inclusion criteria are not well defined at all, and I'm not even sure the subject matter is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. – Pee Jay 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom. There is actually no offence of gouging making the whole topic very difficult to define. I would suggest reintroducing this as a category of players banned for making contact with the eye area and just categorising articles of players who have been sanctioned. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 21:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Would you suggest creating categories for players banned for other reasons as well? noq (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really only suggesting this as a compromise, I suppose the other obvious ones would be players banned for really serious things like stamping and on a wider basis for taking performance enhancing drugs. I'm not saying this is something that should be done just a something taht could be done. As this articles shows, these things are really difficult to categorise. What are your thoughts? G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well As I said in my keep comment, would he oppose to just having the "gouging" table inccluded and have the "contact with eyes table" removed, which I'll support as I fail to see any reason why the whole article should be deleted because of one table. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, as discussed on the talk page, theres actually no offence on its own of gouging so it would be better to go for eye contact. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 18:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy to go with that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Before this becomes a WP:SNOW, the article is well sourced and, as with List of people banned from Major League Baseball, it's a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. I'd suggest that the article's creator userfy this, and look toward bringing it back under the less controversial title of "List of players banned from rugby union", and make this part of that article. I'm sure that there are other reasons that players have been banned, besides the unsportsmanlike (and potentially injurious) practice that has historically been part of the game. Mandsford (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lots of players are banned for one reason or another. A general list of everyone banned would get very large very quickly. The big problem I have is that there is no good definition of gouging - the sporting authorities do not use the term and the 2nd table that has been added is a symptom of this problem. It is there because a lot of the names on it are claimed not to be gouging cases by some editors. The argument for this is the sanctions were not for gouging but contact with the eye or eye area and only the media have described it as gouging, however this applies to all cases. If someone can come up with an agreed criteria for inclusion then the list could be worthwhile. Until that happens it is an arbitrary list of bans for what may or may not be gouging depending on your personal opinion. noq (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the title should refer to "eye contact", since it's forbidden in any sport for one player to put any part of his hand into any part of the eye sockets of another, whether it's the classic "poke-in-the-eye" or the more violent gouging of the eye. It kind of reminds me of the time I mentioned that someone's relative had been imprisoned and they quickly corrected me by saying, "No, he was in jail!" Mandsford (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I just remembered what eye contact means, silly me-- that would make for a great penalty I guess. Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep I've done a total rework to try rescue this article by doing the following:-

Very strong definition of the offence as taken from Rule 10.4 and Appendix 1 of Reg 17 of the International Rugby Boards Laws and Regs. As there is no offence of gouging, I've defined it as the IRB do.
Explained that despite media reporting offences as gouging, the IRB only has levels if seriousness for contact with eye/eye area.
Defined criteria for inclusion to be only incidents from top level competitions.
Merged the list to reflect there is only one offence.
Renamed the article to List of rugby union players banned for contact with eyes or the eye area of an an opponent to reflect the newly defined content of the article.

G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well done on the improvements, particularly the link to the regulations. I'm sorry that you've had to change the title to something awkward, but it does reflect the exact phrasing used by the International Rugby Board regulations. We'll leave the "what does 'eye' specifically mean?" questions to the player's union barristers. Mandsford (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cheers, not hundred percent happy with the title but it does remove ambiguity, am open to suggestions G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - neat improvement, but still an pretty pointy/obscure topic for an article. Mandsford points to List of people banned from Major League Baseball, which I agree is a legitimate article, but the equivalent would be List of rugby unions players banned, without a specific offense. Why the eye thing in particular? Are there other articles for banning for other specific reasons.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nice improvement and it has at last got some inclusion criteria. I don't think we can have a single List of rugby union players banned article as it would quickly get unwieldy unless a very stringent inclusion criteria were imposed which would limit its usefulness. noq (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article with similar appropriate content to form List of rugby unions players banned article. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this article can, one day, be expanded into something with greater scope. And perhaps, one day, someone will create an article that this would logically be merged to. However, we're all moonlighting as writers. Until someone does have the spare time to make a merger target, this is a good model for how to arrange and source an article. Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well it looks like the deletion proposer seems to be supportive of this article now, so I think maybe this AFD should be closed as this article has a lot more potential now, but it will take more than 7- days to make it a much better page for somes ideals. If this page is closed as delete, then all this work that many editors have done to try and make this article better will be for naught. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no valid reason why the list should be limited to a specific act (contact with eyes). A list of banned players would be reasonable. This article seems pointy. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, have you actually looked at the article before making your decision? It has been renamed and improved since it was nominated. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are quite good, so I see little reason to delete outright. An expanded list covering other sorts of bans may be preferable in some ways but would be much harder to manage and may well end up being split back into component parts such as this one. As such, keeping this seems to be the best course of action as I can't see that it violates any policies. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2010 (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.