Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallaght RFC

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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tallaght RFC[edit]

(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) 23:09, 2 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) 01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 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) 03:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Delete Not sure what the speedy/procedural keeps are based on, but I am not sure this article meets the guidelines recently developed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs. After a search through google news I found a mention in the Irish Independent in 2011 [1], but it seems to count against its notability. AIRcorn (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No other evidence of notability found and even if it does meet the Rugby Wikiproject guidelines I feel it fails WP:GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:56, 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) 11:37, 3 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) 03:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very minor, amateur team that does not reach the notability threshold - coverage is routine in nature (i.e. results, mentions in local paper).
I'm very disappointed that much of the AFD thus far has circled around criticizing the nominator. Instead of misquoting guidelines in order to disparage an individual who has been editing since 2006, a thorough reading of Wikipedia's Fourth Pillar would be in order. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while mass nominations of AFDs are highly frowned upon, it's not a reason to close it as speedy keep unless it's clearly disruptive, which it doesn't seem to be the case here. The content right now qualifies as a db-club, and I couldn't find sources that indicate notability for that "amateur" club. Keep votes with no reasoning other than thinking that the nominator is being disruptive (unless it's really the case) even if the article don't meet any of our guidelines should be ignored by the AFD closer and frowned upon as well. Secret ^account 04:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Disruption" is but one of the five "reasons" given in WP:Speedy keep as a reason to close an AfD early. Speedy keep !votes should be recognized as comments, just like "keep votes with no reasoning". There may be continuing confusion in that the nomination has been re-written—here is the original nomination. The original nomination was "WP:NN", five characters meaning the same thing as WP:N, with no additional reasoning. This is a case of WP:Speedy keep reason #1, which states, "...the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion..." The proper thing to do would have been to close this AfD on October 2 or 3. Since the AfD was not closed in a timely manner, the community's time continues to be absorbed. I can hope that going forward, editors will respond quickly in closing such AfDs. Unscintillating (talk) 07:29, 16 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.