Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2013-2014 top 14 transfers


 * 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 -- Y not? 17:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

List of 2013-2014 top 14 transfers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently arbitrary list of rugby transfers. No clear definition on what "top" means. No sources. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 01:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Top 14 is the name of the competition in question so criteria for inclusion is therefore not arbitrary. Other than that I have no opinion with regards keep or delete. Keresaspa (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay well then the title and list as a whole makes a bit more sense. Thanks! Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for now until it can be merged in to a Rugby transfers by nation as is done in football. Apperently transfers between sports clubs is important in Rugby and Football in Europe. See all the lists of these kinds of articles here and delete discussions here. I edited the article to give context and added cats. Richard-of-Earth (talk)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  11:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Super Rugby has their own list, a well maintained one though (List of 2013–14 Super Rugby transfers‎), don't see any reason why we should delete this list. Hope we get lists like these for other rugby union competition as well including Pro12 and the English Premiership. Rename this list to List of 2013-2014 Top 14 transfers--Stemoc (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – Open to changing my mind on this. Not sure how notable this list is. It is not referenced (at all), which is my main concern. If there is an eventual keep I'm not sure that "transfers" is an appropriate description. Unlike football, rugby union does not have transfers as far as I'm aware, and certainly not official "transfer windows". There are "player movements" however, normally when a player is released from their contract, or their contract expires and they resign with another team – rather than transferred between teams – anyone heard of a rugby team paying a transfer fee? Anyway, not sure about notability, and the lack of references has tipped my preference to delete. - Shudde  talk 12:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't think it can be improved like the one for Super Rugby by using a similar table and adding sources (external links)? or do you feel we need to put the one for super rugby up for deletion as well?--Stemoc (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Saw this on Planet Rugby today, its looks like they do use the term "Transfer window". If you all are wondering why one of the biggest if not the biggest rugby websites in the world does not have an article on wikipedia, its cause dumb American admins who know sh** about rugby keep deleting them even without reading them...--Stemoc (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the Super Rugby one doesn't have anywhere near the problems this article does. For one, it is well referenced. This list may be improved, or it may sit there as an orphan article that is poorly written, and completely unreferenced. No one has exactly jumped in after voting keep to improve it. I'm not voting delete because of the use of the term "transfer", that can always be resolved by a move discussion if the article is kept. - Shudde  talk 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if the article was written similar to the Super Rugby one, it would be acceptable, the creator of the article didn't source any of his "transfers" which is the MAIN problem and secondly it can be further developed and I believe its actually a very important article in terms of "rugby"..I personally believe all 4 MAJOR tournaments (Top 14, Super Rugby, Aviva Premiership, Pro12) should have one of these lists...--Stemoc (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator obviously knows nothing about rugby - "No clear definition on what "top" means." It is the name of the highest domestic league in France. This should be speedy closed. --Bob247 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - How about we keep this on topic. Rather than saying "The nominator obviously knows nothing about rugby" and making remarks about the nationality of the nominator, how about we consider whether this nomination would have occurred if this article was correctly named (didn't even use a capital for "Top", and WP:DASH has been ignored), had clearly said what a "transfer" is (there was no lead, and it's still inadequate: for example is retirement a "transfer"?), was completely unreferenced (still is), violated MOS:FLAGS (still does), and was not linked from a page in article-space (still isn't). Hardly our greatest work. - Shudde  talk 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. Since the start of this discussion articles for 2012–13 Top 14 season and 2013–14 Rugby Pro D2 season have been created. I've linked the article to them. If I fix the dash in the name will it break the link to or from this discussion? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Did you mean 2013–14 Top 14 season rather than 2012–13 Top 14 season? Hamish59 (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I have put it on that page now, which is where I meant to put it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2013 (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.