Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league)

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 keep. The only significant argument to delete was based on copyright violation. The issue there was lack of correct attribution during what was apparently a series of copy-paste text moves from one article to another. But, that can be repaired.

The best process when moving an article from one title to another is to use the built-in move function, because that fully preserves the history. The next-best thing would be to include an explicit note in the edit summary, as described in WP:COPYWITHIN.

Unfortunately, we can't roll back time and implement either of those. So, we're left with the least desireable, but still viable, alternative of leaving a note on the talk page describing where the text came from. The person who did the copy-paste should go back and do that now. In fact, I'll make the requirement to do that an explicit part of this close. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league)

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

An equivalent title was redirected by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Rebellion and protected after two recreations. The article was then recreated under this title, and G4 tags were removed. If the consensus of the AFD is disputed, it should go to DRV. —teb728 t c 12:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment from creator I created this as a revert of an edit that appeared to have mistakenly changed Dorr Rebellion to the text of this article, not knowing the whole background of this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we've moved on to talk about content, then I think the topic is notable. This is a club that has been established for six seasons and competes in the top level of their sport in their country, in a league that regularly supplies players to their national team. I don't think a distinction between professional or semi-professional is helpful for establishing notability. While I think the article could be better written and sourced, It's a keep for me. Mattlore (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I requested this article be restored following a G4 speedy deletion here and the admin obliged. As I stated on his talk page, this page doesn't appear to just be an identical unimproved copy of the page that was deleted. I wasn't aware of the recreation history or RickinBaltimore's reason for creating this page. Mattlore (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Dorr Rebellion article was overwritten by the Rhode Island Rebellion text. That was vandalism by an IP, see their contributions: Special:Contributions/90.198.195.116. RickinBaltimore, in good faith, split the text from the Dorr Rebellion article. I think the best bet is to respect the result of the previous AfD and redirect this page, because it has the rugby league disambiguator, to USA_Rugby_League#Teams. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible KEEP The original article should never have been redirected, IMHO the Afd was completely flawed with very little consensus for a redirect. Had the Wikipedia Rugby League community been properly notified of the Afd, I have no doubt it would have closed as keep. However, that is done now and the new article is what is up for discussion. Again, this semi-professional rugby league team IS notable. Just as all the other USA Rugby League teams. They all have sources, most have multiple sources. The league and clubs (RI Rebellion included) get coverage not just in their native USA, but in other Rugby League nations too. Australia/UK especially. I can't deny the fact that I feel there is some kind of vendetta here against Rugby League. That's my feeling and I've made it well known. However, I do feel my rant on WikiProject Rugby League's talk page may have contributed to that above linked IP targeting the Dor Rebellion page for vandalism, which is something I do not want. I apologise if that's the case, but I do feel my opinion, though strong, is justified. After all, my sport has a lot of haters and Wikipedia is sadly a public place where those haters can target. I'm not going to point a finger at any one editor, so If anyone here is NOT a League hater and just been caught up in this mess, I apologise for any hurt feelings from my opinion. Thank you RugbyXIII (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since some people are treating this AfD like a DRV, Endorse closure of previous AfD (by nominator of present AfD). The consensus was clear. Even the one Keep !vote did not claim the team was notable, but only that other stuff exists. The fact that some people now disagree with the consensus is no reason to overturn the closure. —teb728 t c 10:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The content of the page isn't the same as it was at the time of the previous AfD. Mattlore (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a violation of copyright. Text was first copied and pasted from Rhode Island Rebellion to Dorr Rebellion and then again (in good faith) from Dorr Rebellion to Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league). Compare [1] and [2]. In doing so, attribution to those users involved in creating the content has been lost and thus this page is a breach of Wikipedia's licensing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though presumably if this occurs then, as there has been no decision on notability, we are free to re-create this page from scratch? Is there no mechanism to retrieve this, ie merge the two page histories? Mattlore (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are ways to correct the history after a copy-and-paste move; so Malcolmxl5’s argument means only that the article can’t simply be converted to a redirect without being deleted first. But no, if the article is deleted (speedily or not), it can’t be recreated, for the non-notability was decided by the original AfD. It can’t be recreated unless and until the previous AfD is overturned at DRV (and there is no grounds for that). —teb728 t c 06:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Recreation of previously deleted pages does not seem to indicate that it is such a bright line. The previous AfD didn't seem to know anything about the subject, and most commenters instead discussed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While not policy, it seemed odd that the project listed in the talk page wasn't notified, especially when the debate was relisted seeking more contributors. The article has changed substantially since then, and no one yet in this AfD has said that the article is not notable. So far the objections seem to be the history and the fact that it has seed from a previously deleted article on the same subject due to the vandalism from a user. Mattlore (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECREATE is a policy proposal which failed to receive consensus. It is retained as an essay of one user’s opinion. Since it is grossly at odds with process, I am surprised that nobody had MfD’d it before. As for the previous AfD discussion, the fact that people talk about replacing with a redirect or disambiguation implies that they accept the nominator’s assertion that the team is not notable; even the one Keep !vote did not claim the team was notable. —teb728 t c 11:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: Listen guys & girls, the article is well sourced. It is not breaking any copyright. It IS notable. The only real issue with the origional AfD was that people may type in Rhode Island Rebellion seeking the Dorr Rebellion article. This has been addressed and the article in question now, Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league) can only be classed as an easy keep if people here use common sense. Unless my rationale that Union fans are trying to surpress League is in fact correct, I cannot fathom any reason at all why people would be so passionate about getting this well sourced article about a notable rugby league team completely deleted in all forms. Further note: If possible, the article history from Rhode Island Rebellion pre-redirect should be moved/merged into Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby league). I've had my say now anyway, I hope common sense will win the outcome here and if it does, maybe some of my faith in this project can be restored. Closing admin, please make the right decision!! Thank you. RugbyXIII (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Team seems notable within American rugby league per articles sich as these: [3] [4]. DRV doesn't seem appropriate when the first AfD seemed more concerned with establishing the primary topic rather than the notability of the subject. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sourcing looks like it'd push this over the notability bar. I'm having trouble following the copyvio argument made, but if this has been the source of a cut & paste move, that can be properly sorted out with history merges and does not require deletion of the content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:05, 13 March 2016 (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.