Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myton Warriors

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.

Sources have been added to the article but there is no consensus whether they are sufficient to make the subject pass WP:NORG and WP:GNG, although the slight majority seems to think so. As the closing admin, it does not fall to me to decide whether the sources are indeed sufficient and despite the addition there was no real discussion about the specific sources and why they should or should not be considered sufficient to prove notability.

On a side note:

While there is no guideline pertaining to teams, there is - as Nthep points out - a guideline for individual players and there is some consensus to apply this guideline to teams as well in specific cases. There is some sentiment that the subject should be considered notable regardless of GNG or NORG for similar reasons as stated in WP:RLN or WP:NRU. Since this is a decision that potentially affects hundreds of similar articles, it probably is - as some users have commented - in the project's best interest to establish some basic consensus how to handle all those articles, lest we want to have the same discussions over and over again here.

Regards So Why 13:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myton Warriors[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Club plays at the top level of the amateur rugby league system, the BARLA National Conference League Premier Division. In short, the club is notable and meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article however does need some work to improve it's over all standard. Skemcraig (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment – It's worrying that a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union has randomly singled out a Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league article to target for a deletion campaign. I'd hate to think that a personal vendetta could be behind this AfD. I hope that isn't the case Domdeparis. Skemcraig (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very odd thing to say especially without proof but there is no personal vendetta so you can rest assured (please read WP:AGF before making unfounded insinuations). All pages have to meet WP:GNG this one doesn't and all sports clubs have to meet WP:NORG and at the moment this page doesn't. It's not complicated you cannot assume notability for an organisation it has to be backed up by sources. Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I call it as I see it and the question needed to be asked. No WP:AGF issues here. As for WP:GNG / WP:NORG, the article passes easily, hence why I wonder about your personal agenda here. Though you're obviously entitled to your opinion regarding amateur clubs, If you truly don't have an agenda as you say, and I'll take you at your word, I now await your nomination of amateur rugby union club articles for deletion. Just as a final FYI to show I have no bias here, if and when a rugby union club is AfD'd, I'll be !voting keep on that one too. Skemcraig (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply that is exactly what AGF means...not calling it as you see it because maybe you do not see it clearly please read WP:AOBF. When i nominated the article there were no references whatsoever and just the club page as an external link. I came across this page because I was checking edits made by a vandal on other pages. I noticed that it had no sources or external links so I prodded it as such. It was deprodded with only an external link added and no sources. So I then nominated it here. the sources that you have since added may help it to meet WP:NORG but I have my doubts which is why I have left it open to discussion. If you are suggesting that I have something against Rugby League compared to Rugby union because I have never made a deletion proposal of a rugby union club, you are insinuating that I am biased and that I am acting in bad faith. Please don't do that as it is totally based on your own biased opinion of me and is a personal attack. Domdeparis (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I *have* assumed good faith so far, I'll continue to do so, despite the baseless accusations of AGF/Civility breaches. It is perfectly acceptable and frankly normal to ask reasonable questions when things simply don't add up. This is all I have done here and your overreaction is quite suggestive that my gut feeling may have been correct. Though in the spirit of AGF, I will continue to ask simple questions rather than make out right accusations like you're suggesting I am. My simple question is, if you think this Rugby league club fails the policies, why don't you believe these comparable Rugby union clubs fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG too? – Scunthorpe Rugby Club, Sheffield Tigers RUFC, South Leicester RFC, I could go on. All these clubs play at the same level of the RFU system as Myton Warriors do of the RFL system. All are amateur and all have a similar level of cited sources. Now stop getting defensive, If you think you're right, please argue your case with evidence rather than simply shouting "AGF" and "personal attack", as this helps no one. Cheers Skemcraig (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They play in the highest level of amateur rugby league in the UK. As per the above about being notable and meeting existing guidelines.Fleets (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could share a link to those guidelines. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 18:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many, many sources found by an internet search. According to WP:BEFORE "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." In other words, it's not if the article is adequately referenced, but rather if the references exist so the article could be adequately referenced. Domdeparis, if you agree that adequate sourcing exists, whether or not it is or was in the article, than you might consider withdrawing the nomination. Just a suggestion, that's entirely up to you. Jacona (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I did make a search and the coverage that I could find was routine and did not prove notability. "Normal editing" does not concern sources; what you should have reproduced is a bit further down on the page and was this "If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate." Thanks for the suggestion though. Domdeparis (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jacona, this article just needed a clean up, some sources adding (I've made a start on that one) and tagging as required. An AfD is OTT. I also back Jacona's suggestion that Domdeparis should consider withdrawing the AfD. Skemcraig (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I have considered it I looked at the sources and I agree with myself...that the sources added after the nomination do not sufficiently prouve notability. the pitchero page is a self-published history of the club, the national conference league page is just a simple directory entry and the only page that comes close is the local newspaper article. So please remember chaps that just because it is a tiers 4 team doesn't make it notable. there is no inherent notability. And i would suggest you take the time to read WP:NORG more closely, the Hull Daily mail article is 1 independent source (local at that) and NORG says that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." So make an effort and find the sources necessary...I couldn't find them myself so no withdrawal from my part. Domdeparis (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're going around in a circle now Domdeparis, so I'll just refer you back to an earlier comment of mine RE: Union clubs having same "issue" as it works perfectly as a reply to this too. Just an FYI though, I don't think any of the Union or League club articles have any deletion criteria. Skemcraig (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so instead of addressing my remarks you're repeating that other stuff exists so this page should too...try reading this it should help you avoid turning circles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have very clearly argued my case I don't know how else to put it...I can write it in French if you wish but over and above that I can't do any more but I'll try one more time...IMHO THIS page doesn't meet WP:NORG. Domdeparis (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for you to cite OTHERSTUFF. That ~~policy~~ essay doesn't excuse you singling out amateur League club articles for random AfD's while conveniently ignoring Union clubs with potentially the exact same issues you accuse the League club of having. You're not doing much to dampen my worries that you're operating with some kind of COI here. Either way, this argument is getting the deletion discussion no where. Since we're making ourselves nice and clear, let me make my position nice and clear for you. Myton Warriors does not fail WP:GNG or WP:NORG and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Skemcraig (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC) – corrected 00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC) by Skemcraig (talk)[reply]

Skemcraig, it's not really possible to disprove, what we need is evidence that it does pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As has been said, there are lots of sources...can you point out the ones that you feel show WP:Significant coverage by reliable sources? Jacona (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree Jacona. The onus is on the nominator to show why the article should be deleted, not solely on myself to prove why it shouldn't. I simply come here and give my opinion and my !vote like anyone else. In any case, I've already added a few sources to the article and when I have time I'll research some more. This is not a life priority of mine though you'll understand... Also, since it's possible the nominator may have a preference for nominating club articles of one sport for deletion, whilst willingly ignoring the identical club articles of thier favorite sport, I think the onus should apply even more on them to show that their case here is based on provable facts rather than a personal COI. I will also point out that I've decided that I won't be replying to Domdeparis again regarding this issue, as from this point on it'd likely only escalate into further pointless arguing which not only wastes mine and thier valuable time, but also serves no purpose anymore to this AfD or Wikipedia as a whole. However, I remain open minded and willing to give Domdeparis the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions here, despite all of the above. Skemcraig (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. No specific policies countering those notability guidelines have been presented by proponents to keep the article. Sources provided and found are local interest stories or schedules/results pages. Amateur sports are not inherently notable. Scr★pIron^IV 17:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It passes GNG / NORG, your !vote is flawed. Skemcraig (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skemcraig, perhaps you could show us how the article passes GNG / NORG? Please take a look at WP:DISCUSSAFD for some direction on how to proceed, if you would like to keep the article. Jacona (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree Jacona. The onus is on the nominator to show why the article should be deleted, not solely on myself to prove why it shouldn't. I simply come here and give my opinion and my !vote like anyone else. In any case, I've already added a few sources to the article and when I have time I'll research some more. This is not a life priority of mine though you'll understand... Also, since it's possible the nominator may have a preference for nominating club articles of one sport for deletion, whilst willingly ignoring the identical club articles of thier favorite sport, I think the onus should apply even more on them to show that their case here is based on provable facts rather than a personal COI. - To add to this, I look forward to ScrapIron / Domdeparis nominating all the amateur rugby union club articles for deletion in the near future... (I won't hold my breath!) Skemcraig (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skemcraig: You may disagree with Jacona, I don't, he and I may not agree on the notability of this article but he understands the idea behind these discussions and how to participate. Please stop making presumptions about me and the reasons behind the nomination, this is once again WP:AOBF. This is the last time that I will ask you to refrain from doing it, the next time I will ask an administrator to intervene because it's starting to become very unpleasant. Rather than attacking the nominator try reading his arguments and reply to them. Once again I am not on a crusade against rugby league clubs, I personally couldn't care less what the subject is so long as the article is up to Wikipedia standards which this one was not when I nominated it here. For your information my favourite sport is not rugby union but show jumping. All clubs must meet WP:NORG and this article failed hence my nomination. My argument is valid the more you try and turn it into a personal vendetta on my part the more your !vote loses weight. Once again if I come across a page that I don't believe meets the necessary criteria I will nominate but there is no way I will go looking for rugby union clubs that don't meet the criteria just to please Skemcraig and prove my good faith. You have now accused me more than 9 times of acting in bad faith and the repetition of WP:AOBF without proof is a personal attack. Last warning to stop the Personal attack stick to the subject in hand. Domdeparis (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough sources to pass GNG. In terms of a footballing pedigree, the clubs place in the Premier Division and its history in the Challenge Cup make a case for this club to be notable. But, as an editor of both codes of rugby, it is clear that their is not enough guidance in place for applying NORG to sports clubs. Mattlore (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there's not a specific policy for sports clubs notability to be honest. It'd stop anything like this happening again for sure. I have no idea how you go about getting policies made, but something like WP:SPORTSCLUB with a list of criteria would be ideal. Playing in a sports top level amateur competition would be an easy include for me. As well as things like "is fully or semi-professional" etc of course. Skemcraig (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recently proposed an AFD for a soccer club who play at tier 9 or 10 of the English structure and about whom I could find nothing beyond routine coverage but it ended up as a snow keep because the club alleged met WP:NFOOTY as they had played once in the first round of the FA Vase and as far as the soccer buffs were concerned that is notability enough. If Myton have played in the Challenge Cup, which at least is a top level national competition, then by the same standard they are a notable club. Nthep (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could anyone proposing the mass deletion of amateur sports teams please point out the specific points within NORG that this particular sports club fails. Please qualify the assumption that it fails NORG as I see little specificity within that argument put forward, and often replied with "it's up to you to prove me wrong" kind of statement which is far from helpful to either side.Fleets (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2017 (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.