Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Rugby League European Championship B


 * 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. As remarked during the discussion, the "keep" !votes (termed "oppose" here) are not policy-based: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ITSNOTABLE are not good arguments. The "delete" !votes, however, have valid policy-based rationales. No prejudice against recreating the article if independent reliable sources become available in the future. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rugby League European Championship B

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Another contested redirect. Zero independent sourcing. Should probably be drafted or redirected until appropriate sourcing is added, but that's no longer an option. Currently fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: Every previous Rugby League European Championship B tournament has its own article. This edition is as notable as any of the others. The article is written in more depth than the 2023 Rugby League European Championship with fixtures and tournament schedule being known for Euro B yet Euro A is apparently fit for Wikipedia. The same with the sources, the same for sources are used in both articles yet Euro B has apparently too poor a coverage whist the Euro A article is fine. Also if you look at previous Euro B articles, most of the citations are ERL and IRL articles. I don't understand why this article is being specially targeted for removal based on notability. It's a major international rugby league tournament, how is that not a notable subject? Mn1548 (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: seems a standard start class article for an upcoming international sporting tournament. Perhaps a very mild case of WP:TOOSOON, but not in any egregious sense. Storm machine (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: This is for an International Rugby League competition that has had previous articles. This is a qualification event for the 2025 Rugby League World Cup which is the biggest International Rugby League competition. As Mn1548 pointed out other articles from Euro B are often just from the IRL, ERL or related bodies. Outside of IRL and ERL, an article from the NRL and Guardian have also been cited. Alex333manly (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - just a note that none of the oppose !votes above are based on policy. Onel 5969  TT me 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Counter comment: The policy you have linked that you claim this article currently fails is the article does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This divides into 5 catagories:

1. Presumed - purely subjective 2. Significant coverage - IRL, ERL, NRL, and Guardian souces give this. 3. Reliable - again all for are reliable 4. Secondary - NRL and Guardian are 5. Independent - Guardian definitely has nothing to do with rugby league

I, not in exact words, has definitely bought up significant coverage from IRL and ERL, and another editor has commented on the inclusion of NRL and Guardian as references. Mn1548 (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete We need to be careful to consider the sourcing specifically for the European Group B qualifying division, not the overall World Cup itself or the other qualifying divisions. None of the independent sources meet WP:SIGCOV regarding this group, therefore WP:GNG is not met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good rationale for keeping. I would go as far as saying the other things are likely not notable either. The references do not demonstrate notability to me. SWinxy (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.