Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco Rugby Club


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Banco Rugby Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Sources are all self published. No coverage in third-party sources. Subject fails notability guidelines. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment—Some discussion between the article creator and myself after PRODding can be found here. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on my talk page, I consider it a wrong nomination for those reasons: 1) "Sources are all self published": In the case of Banco, such as other minor rugby teams in Argentina, it is really difficult to find information beyond clubs' webpages because rugby union is not a popular sport in Argentina, and the media does not usually cover them. 2) If this page should be deleted, all the pages about minor rugby teams in Argentina should be so. Take a look at Torneo del Interior, Torneo del Litoral (or even Torneo de la URBA leagues: most of the articles of those teams are stubs.


 * According to User:Livitup's position, all short articles in WP should be deleted? ...


 * I prefer improving articles instead of nominating them for deletion. This is what WP has been conceived for, I guess. I hope User:Livitup help to the article improving it. Fma12 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources are NOT all self published. This argument is a fallacy. In fact, Banco is listed here as a club of Cuyo region of Argentina. Another Argentine website mentions Banco RC here detailing fixture and positions of Torneo del Oeste tournament which Banco takes part of. The Unión de Rugby de Cuyo (The Association which rules the practise of rugby in Cuyo) also mentions the club here as member. Banco Rugby Club also has a Facebook page with a large list of photos visible to all. Fma12 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep Along much the same lines as my arguemnt at Articles for deletion/Marista Rugby Club, although I feel the arguement in this case is weaker. The rugby union wikiproject tried to develop some guidlines for club notability here (Argentina is Tier one) and although it doesn't trump WP:GNG could be useful in situations where foriegn language sources are used. As to some of the discussion above and at Livitup's talk page there appears to be some confusion over reliable sources and third party sources. They are not always the same thing. The clubs website is a reliable source to provide information about the club, but it can't be used to establish the clubs notability. A mention on a blog is a third party source, but it is not reliable and can't be used to establish notability. Newspaper articles, rugby websites and books are third party and usually considered reliable and provide the best evidence of notability. AIR corn (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to your words, the rugbytime source could be considered reliable, because that is a site about rugby union news, not only in Argentina but Worldwide. Besides, I also added a new source from another Argentine website,, which covers all international rugby. I hope this helps to establish notability. Fma12 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete Sourced by sites affiliated with the subject only. Has no sources independent of the subject, a prime requirement for notability. Stedrick (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A google news search shows up these, , , , , , , , , , . The ones I put through Google translate were match reports and tournament announcements. They could be useful and are not sources affiliated with the subject. AIR corn (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)  01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Nom-comment: Everything that has been found so far seems to be routine, trivial coverage, such as "match reports and tournament announcements". I don't see this kind of coverage meeting the spirit of the GNG, but I suppose that's up to the closing admin to determine.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 04:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: User Stedrick is wrong. Sites such as rugbyfun or rugbytime  (also placed as references on the page) are independent, not affiliated as he states so these are media related websites covering rugby union news. Nominator (Livitup) also talks about "trivial coverage", what is a fallacy, so Banco RC is a rugby club and takes part of tournaments, and the media covers that sort of news about the club. Apart from that, the websites named (as well as Diario Los Andes or Mendoza Online, provided by Aircorn) clearly qualify as third part sources, although nominator had written that the article did not have that sort of sources (what is not true). Fma12 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: More sources where Banco RC is cited, here:, and here: , and here: , plus , also ... all of them referring to an active participation of the club in different official tournaments. "trivial coverage", according to the nominator... but it is what a sports club is related to, I guess. Fma12 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2012 (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.