Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bexley 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. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bexley RFC[edit]

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

I just prodded this article, but on second thoughts the creator is almost guaranteed to contest, so I'm bringing it here for discussion instead. Prod concern was: Non-notable club – the provided sources do not establish notability. Please see the related discussion on my talk page from when the article was at articles for creation. AJ Cham 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page discussion copied here for ease of reference

Hello, you appear to have declined my article for the following reason:

"This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria A7 and/or guidelines on organizations and companies. Please provide more information on why the organization is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you."

From the link "guidelines on organizations and companies" under "Decisions based on verifiable evidence" it says:

"Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article."

Via the references, I have shown that the Club has attracted notice from the press, the English Rugby Football Union and the Bexley Council. I would imagine there are many more notable references in non-internet related publications such as Rugby World.

also under the heading "Additional considerations are":

"Nationally famous local organizations: Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or local chapter of a club) may be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

There are many articles in the local press that cover Bexley RFC and it's local rivals as well as club developments, achievements and results.

"Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive."

Bexley RFC has a long History and has been in existence for 53 years there are generally around 100+ members and at senior level alone attract 45 to 60 players every week plus a significantly greater amount of Junior and Mini's. achievemnts have taken time to come but through dedication and investment in youth. Bexley have been successful in Junior tournaments.

Please Can you explain to me why this article is not notable.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmjco (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a dictionary definition of notable is not very useful to us – by it's nature, whether something is "worthy of notice" is entirely subjective, hence why we have defined standards to help us make such judgements objectively (although we are human, so a degree of subjectivity is inevitable). The basic standard is significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources you provided are:

Rugby Football Union. The page in question appears to be a Bexley RFU press release, and is therefore not independent.

Bexley RFC (x2). Of course, not independent.

News Shopper(x2). Local press, in general, is not unacceptable but may be held to a higher level of scrutiny than national coverage. With sports clubs in particular, I don't think local press carries much, if any, weight in terms of notability. There are thousands of small teams in the UK alone that will get substantial coverage in the local paper; even school or pub teams. This is of course where my own subjectivity has come into it, but I notice I am not the first to decline your submission on grounds of notability so maybe others share my opinion. Furthermore, as you quoted yourself, "Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."

Dartford Times. Trivial mention in an article about a former player. Not significant coverage.

Bexley council. The document is 52 pages long so you'll forgive me for only skimming it, but as far as I can tell this is an analysis of all sports fields in the borough - it acknowledges that Bexley RFC exists, but I don't see how it could possibly indicate any degree of notability beyond that.

I hope you understand my position, but if you have any further questions feel free to ask. Regards, AJ Cham 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply and I understand your position, however I hope you also understand that I am purely trying to get a article published about a subject that I feel passionately about.

Comment:I fully appreciate that, but I can't let that sway my judgment. No offence intended, but have you considered that your passion for the subject may have clouded yours?

My first point is that I have not posted a dictionary definition of notable but I have in fact quoted the Wikipedia “guidelines on organizations and companies” as directed in the decline notice.

Comment:You did indeed refer to our policies, but you began the paragraph with the dictionary definition, which I felt was irrelevant. I see now that the guideline page does use the phrase "worthy of notice" as well, but even still it isn't worth focussing on that phrase too much.

The RFU page is not a Bexley Press release but in fact an RFU page dedicated to the club there should be a page for all member clubs. This shows however that the RFU recognise the Bexley RFC amongst all other member clubs and the value to the game and local community.

Comment:I disagree. The page discusses the club in the first person and is advertising player vacancies. It was clearly written by a representative of the club and is intended to promote the club. In any case, the RFU's recognition of membership is not indicative of notability. They recognise more than 3,000 clubs – I'm sure looking at it objectively you would acknowledge that not all of them are notable.

The Bexley RFC links are not intended to show the clubs notability but are related to quotes from the history.

Comment:That's fine (to an extent – see WP:Primary sources), I only mentioned them for completeness.

The News Shopper articles refer to the clubs and effectively backs up the main article through the commitment to developing youth in the sport and the history of the club.

Comment:My concern was not the content of the articles, but whether the source was significant for purposes of establishing notability. I stand by my previous statement.

The Dartford Times article refers to a player developed by the club who has represented his country at a national level. Harry Fry is still connected to the club and he helps train the juniors when possible. This article further backs up the article and the clubs commitment to the local youth and how this commitment helps the sport at a National level.

Comment:I'm sorry, but you're stretching things a bit now. The article says nothing more than that Fry played for Bexley as a five-year-old. Everything else you've stated is interpolation and not supported by the article at all. Also, notability is not inherited – that a former player has gone on to greater things says nothing to the notability of Bexley. Furthermore, even if notability could be inherited, there would be nothing to inherit from Harry Fry as he does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:ATHLETE.

The Bexley council document goes further than recognising the club exists, there is also a passage on page 21 that says “It is recognised that Bexley RFC plays an active role in developing rugby in the borough, and has a long term ambition to return to a local ground”. This document clearly recognises the impact Bexley have on the game.

Comment:Well, as I said I only skimmed the document. Nevertheless, that a council might be interested in the activities and plans of any local organisation is nothing much to shout about.

Finally I have noticed that the article “English Rugby Union System” under “The System” it refers to the league setup in England and although not complete contains articles on leagues involved. Within those leagues that have articles created so far are the teams that are involved, with links to those teams that have articles created already. I would have thought that the Bexley RFC article needs to be created to help Wikipedia complete this article on Rugby Union.

Comment:There are, unfortunately, a huge number of articles on here that ought not to be, and some of the club articles you refer may fit that description. It's an uphill struggle to keep up with them. However, the existence of these articles is cause to try to solve the problem, not add to it.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmjco (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my comments inline for clarity. One final point, have you considered that a more specialised wiki, such as http://rugbyunion.wikia.com/wiki/Rugby_Union_Wiki, may be a more appropriate location for an article such as this? AJ Cham 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Cham 17:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article was turned down at Articles for creation many times before being created anyway. Amateur club with no apparent notability. noq (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends as I am no expert on the English system, there is still a chance that the club can be deemed notable. If the club is a member of the RFU, that could point to notability, as it will then probably be a feeder club to one of the larger teams. Also amateur clubs in rugby are embraced rather than used as a point of non-notability. Rugby union has only gone professional in the last ten years at the top tier, and amateur is not a dirty word in the sport. I agree that many of the cites are not very strong to say the least, but that does not merit a delete in itself. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the deletionists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Irish Amateur. oh and while I'm here I may as well vote.... The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, it does have the 3rd party sources in there for it to be considered notible. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? Please refer to the above discussion where I explained in detail to the author why I don't believe the references demonstrate notability. The only source that shows significant coverage is News Shopper, and attempts to find others makes it pretty clear that this is a club of only local interest. As I said above, even some school and pub teams can expect similar coverage in local press. The AFD for London Irish Amateur was inappropriate, but is not relevant here, as it has not been suggested that this article be deleted on account solely of Bexley's amateur status. In fact I'd taken no steps to find out whether the club was amateur or professional; it's of no concern.

In response to FruitMonkey, I sincerely doubt that RFU membership should be taken as an indication of notability, as I explained to Mcmjco. AJ Cham 12:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I spent a good amount of time searching Google news archives, and nothing of any note was there. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and this subject doesn't have what it takes to cross it. God only knows how many subjects I could write about, and are what I think are important would deservedly have a WP:Afd tag slapped on them. SauliH (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time I concur with FruitMonkey that amateur is not the issue here, and in no way should be construed to be the reason for my agreement to delete. Notability is. SauliH (talk) 04:14, 25 July 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.