Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aireborough RUFC


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Aireborough RUFC

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Listing for AfD after speedy was declined with simple contradiction given as reasoning. This article is completely unreferenced and includes solicitations and contact information for recruiting players and fans. Completely POV and peacocking. I know: fix instead of delete. Since the material is unrefererenced and strongly POV, it is not slavageable. Further, no claim to notability is offered--referenced or otherwise. There are also neutrality concerns, as people affiliated with the club have managed the article to suit their publicity needs. Mikeblas (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tentative Delete: According to Notability (organizations and companies), "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There is no evidence of that given in this article.  If such evidence can be produced by the end of this AFD it could be kept.  Also as an interesting note, the 'club history' on the club mainpage links back to this article, which strongly suggests that the material constitutes original research. Locke9k (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing in the article that provides evidence of notabilty. Add to this the fact that the league level they are playing at has not been seen as notable enough for someone to have created an article on that. Unless someone can show that this level of rugby is considered to inherently notable it fails WP:ORG. Nuttah (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Votes" shouldn't be based on just the current state of the article. Before you call for deletion you should make an effort to look for sources yourself per all deletion policy pages. - Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sign of notability, and too much slanted to marketing purposes for my liking. In the event that notability is established, prune all of the promotional material. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- What is the policy on minor league RUFCs? This seems NN to me.  IF KEPT: Contact info should be deleted.  The acknowledgements should go on the talk page.


 * 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.