Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2015–16 Pro12 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   no consensus. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

List of 2015–16 Pro12 transfers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. Teams are subject to change prior to next season; deals could also fall apart in the mean time. At the time of this nomination, even the main season article doesn't exist yet. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

All the deals are confirmed with source and a season by season record is being kept of transfers across Europe. This whole stub was set up in order to remove the transfers from the main team pages. Would be daft to delete as this was the solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.200.134 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid none of that addresses the core concerns here, nor is it relevant to any deletion or keep criteria. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yes it does address the core concerns. According to the intro paragraph on WP:TOOSOON, it states that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." In this article, sources clearly do exist, as indicated by the references. That article is a collection of verifiable content ... and content that is currently or has recently been reported, so I really don't know how it can be deemed WP:TOOSOON if it's being reported by media outlets now? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's TOOSOON because we haven't gotten to this season yet. It may be a collection of verifiable content, but until a player actually joins a club, it is still essentially speculation, because so many things can change in the mean time. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that we haven't gotten to the season yet. We've not gotten to the 2019 Rugby World Cup yet and won't for a while, but there are a number of verifiable and already-released facts about the tournament that makes for a valid article. Many things can change there too. Earth can explode and the World Cup might never happen. But valid and verifiable facts pertaining to that can be mentioned and included. And the same for this article. It's not "essentially speculation", transfers should only be included on that page if it is verifiable and from a reliable source. A whole host of players have already signed contracts to join other teams later during 2015. If these contracts have been signed and this has been accurately relayed by reliable sources, then there's no reason why it should not be included in an article. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apples to oranges. The 2019 Rugby World Cup is a general article on the topic. This is a transfer article (and I should note that the Rugby Union WikiProject is one of a very small number that actually seem to think these pages are valid in the first place) - in case you haven't noticed, the main season article does not exist yet. Explain to me exactly why this page should exist when that one doesn't - and why it should've been created first? And perhaps speculation is not quite the right word... but none of these transfers are guaranteed to happen. Transfer pages should only exist (if they should exist at all, but again, that's another debate entirely) if there are transfers that have actually happened. None of these HAVE happened. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I really don't understand your logic in the first few sentences. This is a general article on the topic of transfers related to the 2015–16 Pro12 competition. Different topics, yes certainly. But the same logic applies to the validity of having these articles. I don't know why the main season doesn't exist yet, maybe the relevant editors haven't gotten around to creating it yet. But if there is valid, verifiable information pertaining to that season, then it can be created. There is valid, verifiable information regarding transfers relating to that season, which means that the transfer articles can be created. I know none of these HAVE happened (but again, the 2019 Rugby World Cup hasn't happened). It's OK to have articles related to something in the future, as long as the facts presented in that article is factual and verifiable. Do me a favour - please have a quick look at this article as an example. That is a press release from South African side the Bulls regarding two of their players joining French clubs later in 2015. That clearly indicates that these transfers will happen, contracts have been signed, etc. In the same way as the 2019 Rugby World Cup possibly not happening due to unforeseen circumstances, these transfers might also not happen. But they have already been reported by a reliable source as fact. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for your statement that "the Rugby Union WikiProject is one of a very small number that actually seem to think these pages are valid in the first place". There are actually a very small amount of these pages for Rugby Union. There are significantly more for, say, football. See this search results list, for example. The results are almost entirely football-related results. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're comparing the validity of a general article on a future topic to an article on a small segment of a future topic. That's apples to oranges. Those football transfer articles are generally restricted to just a few leagues, and mostly those where WikiProject Football's most active members aren't editing. There's no reason for this article to exist when the main season one does not, and right now, there's only a limited amount of information that could easily be included in the main season article anyway. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is now getting way off track, to be honest. The bottom line is – WP:TOOSOON basically states that article content (even if related to future events) should be verifiable by reliable sources. This is definitely the case here, as indicated by the references provided. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2015 (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.