Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saskatchewan Rugby Union

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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan Rugby Union[edit]

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

Unreferenced articles about a regional sports organization which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NRU - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — You are trying to delete five articles here, and trying to delete additional rugby articles on another AfD. You really ought to raise the issue at the WP:RU talk page, and see if you can gain consensus on the standards that this WikiProject ought to apply regarding the notability of regional and local governing bodies. Barryjjoyce (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have used all the current criteria within WP:GNG, WP:NRU and Rugby Projects notability. Each of these articles listed above consist of a rewording of the title and an external link, they hold no encyclopedic value. If the project wishes to begin work on a consensus for notability they are free to do so. In any of the AFDs so far the only argument for keeping them is a sense of WP:Inherited. I have tried to maintain a regional separation between the AFDs except for this one because they all fall under the same umbrella mention previously. I still have to go through the British Columbia Rugby Union, the primary union page has some references which is a huge step up from any other Canadian union page so far, however the sub-unions and individual clubs probably do not warrant their own articles. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It seems that the project was notified of these AfDs by a bot after January 1, although some members had noticed a few of them earlier. I agree that this was not the most consensus-oriented way to go about a mass deletion. As far as I can tell, the project's notability guidelines apply to professional rugby. That doesn't mean that the governing bodies of province-level amateur rugby are not notable. Presumably they were thought to be notable when they were included in the navbar that appears under every Canadian rugby article. If these articles are deleted and then the project tries to get them back, the result will be a lot of churn that could have been avoided by discussing it first on the project talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please note also that although professionalism does exist in rugby union, it is a recent introduction, not actually very widespread and not the sole criterion for notability in the sport. Rugby union has traditionally been amateur, and in certain notable rugby playing nations such as Canada and Argentina this is still the case. Vancouver Rugby Union qualifies in this regard. -MacRùsgail (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 13 January 2015 (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.