Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricanes Rugby League


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  05:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hurricanes Rugby League

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable team, whose aim is "is to compete in one of the professional leagues in the United States by 2013", what coverage exists is only within rugby websites (reproductions of Media releases etc.) and not anything significant and/or independent of the sport, thus does not meet the WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep While there is a bit of WP:CRYSTAL here i that the team has yet to play at the international level, there is enough 3rd party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Coverage need not be independent of the sport, only independent of the subject of the article which seems to be the case here. RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is all speculation at best, no the coverage is just re-hashing and re-publication of media releases. Mtking (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Worthy of inclusion as stated aboveYoundbuckerz (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the author you would say that, however the coverage does not exist for this speculative venture. Mtking (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note have a look at Articles for deletion/Denver Wolverines, as Youndbuckerz has before created articles on RL teams that do not meet the standards of notability. Mtking (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources have to be independent of the subject; that doesn't mean they have to be independent of the sport. In this case, discounting the team's own press releases and sources that just replicate the releases, that still leaves us with the Noosa Journal/Quest News source. I've also found this, which appeared in Rugby League Week and is written by rugby journalist Steve Mascord. Between the two I think the article just meets most of the WP:GNG criteria. To my mind, the real issue that ought to be discussed is whether this passes WP:CRYSTAL.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: The general consensus is that Hurricanes Rugby League passes WP:GNG. I have relisted the debate to allow further discussion about whether the subject passes WP:CRYSTAL. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL. Point 5 states : Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors.. At this time all that exists is the announcement of the intention to play in one of two possible leagues, without confirmation from the individual league that a place has been offered and accepted then there can be no indication that the team will actually ever play a match. Mtking (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not supersede WP:GNG, and the wording of WP:CRYSTAL makes that fairly plain. Looking more directly at the content and sourcing, this is clearly an actual entity, and not an "anticipated" (using the wording from WP:CRYSTAL) entity. Whether they compete in one league, the other, or some unanticipated third league, this is an entity that currently exists and appears to be notable. As such, I don't think WP:CRYSTAL really applies. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL does supercede WP:GNG. It's a policy, GNG is a guideline. It is true and verifiable that this team has launched, but as they have no firm plans to do anything a rugby team typically does - ie, play games - I think it's fair that we discuss whether it passes our policy on future/announced entities.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. Oops. Right you are. Sometimes? I'm a dumbass. Regardless, I maintain the rest of my point, even as I cede the clear veracity of the rest of your's (ie "no firm plans to do anything a rugby team typically does"). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourced notability claim of being Jamaica's first pro rugby league franchise  Jebus989 ✰ 12:12, 1 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.