Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishguard and Goodwick 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    No Consensus. There is no consensus in the discussion below to delete these articles. As an aside, it would have been more helpful to the closer if participants had spent more time discussing the presence or absence of sources rather than what level on the Football pyramid these teams are most similar to or the history if rugby union. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fishguard and Goodwick RFC

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am also nominating the following related pages:

All articles concerned are minor, entirely amateur club rugby union sides, playing in the lower divisions of the Welsh rugby system. The only citations present give a league position and listing of what area the club is in. This is trivial information ("listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion"), hence the subjects have not met the notability criteria of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, nor do I believe that they could do so. Cymru82 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Amateur is a mute point when concerning rugby union as all rugby union was amateur for the first 120 years, therefore that is a no go. The league to which the club is associated is a valid organisation controlled by a recognised World Sporting body. The fact that they play in the lower divisions is also not an issue as teams have a history which sees them move from higher to lower, so just because a team is in the lower echelons now does not mean they have always been there. There is also a history of accepting lower division amateur sporting teams in other sports. All football teams in the FA (down to at least tier eight) have articles despite having little more information than these rugby teams nominated, although that is not an argument for keeping it does show precedent. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept that amateur/professional may not be relevant. However the teams nominated have not (as far as I'm aware, and the articles certainly doesn't help) reached a division higher than 3 West (the 'West' bit being particularly relevant, as this means it's a regional league, rather than a national one). Division Three is the effectively the fifth tier of club competition in Wales (Regions, Premiership, Div 1 W/Div 1 E, Div 2 W/Div 2 E, Div 3 E/SE/W/SW). But this is besides the point to an extent, because the subjects lack "coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". That is the key to determining notability. Without this, it is nearly impossible to independently cite basic factual items such as squads and the club's organisational structure, let alone write an encyclopaedic article about the club as a whole. Cymru82 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regional also doesn't matter. Many sports are based on regions, mainly to allow costly travel to be kept to a minimum. If teams can promote themselves to the highest echelons of the sport which is national, then the criteria is met. The English football league was once regional and its history included the likes of Cardiff, Villa, Bristol, etc. Historic and notable, and if I'm not mistaken the NFL is sub divided into regional areas. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If and when they reach the higher echelons of the sport, then it's likely they will become the subject of "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" and meet the criteria for notability. At present however, I still maintain they don't. Yes, I appreciate regional, amateur etc. doesn't matter - I was just trying to put the clubs into context. My main argument for deletion is that no-one has yet managed to provide evidence of notability in terms of that significant coverage, nor supplied a compelling reason why these articles meet notability by some other criteria. Cymru82 (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wish to use English soccer as the analogy these guys would be in League 18. Also there will be probably be 200 clubs of this size and importance in London. And the gates for the matches by these teams will be less than 100 and you can get in for free. Don't cite me on any of that, i'm making a general point rather than being factually correct. Szzuk (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No you are incorrect. Fishguard and Goodwick are in the sixth tier of the WRU league, not 18th. There is no analogy. You can't use the fact that Wales has only 6% of the population of England to use it as a weapon to beat the article. It's in tier six, there is no argument. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cutting to the chase. Provide references demonstrating these pages pass WP:V or they go bye byes. I'm not interested in crappy conversations like this. Go find the references. Szzuk (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete all. No assertion of notability, no independant references of note. They are small amateur teams playing rugby union. I have no idea what the notability guideline states for rugby, or if there is one, however these guys don't pass. Szzuk (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not use 'amateur' as a reason for deletion for rugby union teams, its entire ethos is amateur. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not try to correct other people on the usage of amateur because you don't understand it's ambiguity. Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's perfectly entitled to criticise you on this basis, regarding rugby union. For a hundred years, rugby union was the amateur code, and rugby league was the professional code, and this mentality still permeates most of the sport. Many amateur RU sides ARE notable. Some produce internationals.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Has this been listed at WikiProject Rugby union? FruitMonkey (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: If the league, WRU Division Five West, is notable enough to have an article so are the clubs in it. Amateur status may be a reason for deletion in Asociation Football articles, it can't be for Rugby Union, for historical reason. Calistemon (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. There are no references demonstrating the notability of these clubs. Szzuk (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Given how many utterly pointless articles there are on Wikipedia, I can't begin to imagine why rugby union teams from towns that I've actually heard of (and I'm not Welsh) should be considered "non-noteable". They are the top amateur team from those towns playing in a national league pyramid not just a few mates having a chuck about on a Sunday. You'd easily be able to google match reports in the local press.GordyB (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here in Wrexham (yes I'm Welsh) the under 11 rugby teams get a mention in the local paper, so do they get a page? WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid keep argument. Szzuk (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. Getting a write-up in the press is notability.GordyB (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added some work to Fishguard and Pembroke Dock. Multiple sources to hopefully add validity, including the fact that Archive Wales feels that the Quins are important enough to store and record their club's papers as historical documents. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now updated Neyland, seven cites from different sources (multiple), all notable. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the refs are very weak and still don't demonstrate notability. However there is something worth discussing now, so I'll leave others to this debate. Have a good day. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep Most rugby union sides are amateur. That is just the way it is. These sides participate in a valid national league system operated by the national governing body. --Bob (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment They play in division 5 West, yes? So the sixth tier, which is the equivalent, in soccer, of a club like King's_Lynn_FC? Given that I'd say it's a probable keep - so long as we don't try to create articles for their youth teams or for their players (unless otherwise notable of course). Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's sort-of the seventh tier, as the regional teams are the premier 'clubs' in Wales (it's the regional teams that play in the Heineken Cup against the top club sides from England and France). Seeing as we're trying to equate this with football for some reason, as an example, on the BBC Welsh TV News, it's common for Cardiff and Swansea City (English football tier 2) and Wrexham and Newport (English football tier 5) to get a mention, but for rugby not even Welsh Premiership (Welsh rugby tier 2) sides get a mention, which gives an example of the respective leagues statuses.


 * Regardless, many of these articles are lacking decent quality sources which prove notability through significant coverage. A match report in a local paper is not significant in my view - it doesn't provide an overview of a teams history, organisation or whatever - merely a result for the latest match they played.


 * We're also getting distracted over the 'amateur' issue - I'm not arguing that amateur=not notable. Teams like Penarth RFC which have received significant coverage are notable, despite their amateur status. It was a bad choice of wording on my part. Many amateur teams are notable, my argument is that these teams are not. Cymru82 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fwiw the only reason I'd equate it to football at all is that WP:FOOTY has a very handy set of notability guidelines that really help to keep things easy to decide on. No other reason, promise! I can see your argument entirely - it's along these lines that I'd be weak keep at best. I can see delete in the terms that you're putting the argument though. Perhaps everyone needs to reconsider within those terms? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - being an "amateur" team in rugby union doesn't indicate low status, nor even does "regional". Professionalisation of rugby union is uneven, and relatively recent.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2 011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Assessing these clubs as a whole I opted to look for what was notable rather than what was not. For the most part, they all have been the homes of notable players, they all have long histories important in a social and sporting context, both for the towns they are associated with and with the development of Welsh rugby and in this sense bolster other articles substantially, and they are all in recognised and documented leagues.Kwib (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2011 (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.