Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sri Lanka national rugby union team results


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Sri Lanka national rugby union team results

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a repository for listing every single result of sporting teams. Espnscrum.com does that. What's more the Sri Lanka national rugby union team is a very low ranked team that is not top tier. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I fail to see the logic behind this nomination, there are hundreds of repository related lists in Wikipedia, with subjects of less significance than Sri Lankan national rugby union team results. See: Category:Cricket-related lists, Category:Rugby union-related lists, Category:Association football-related lists. Furthermore there already exists many related national rugby union team results articles... (Category:Lists of national rugby union team results), the same goes for football. In addition to List of Germany national rugby union team results, which has the same status as Sri Lanka in rugby. Moreover Sri Lanka has one of the oldest rugby unions in the world with a significant history and one of the largest playing populations in the world, even more so than many tier 1+2 nations. This article is much more detailed than Espnscrum.com or any other website with similar content. Though Sri Lanka might be relatively low ranked compared to the tier 1 teams it is one of the higher teams in Asia, with rugby being a highly notable and followed sport in the country, in some cases just as much as other notable sports in the county, as well as Sri Lankan rugby becoming more and more notable among the IRB. It seems to me you are purely basing this deletion on ranking and status in relation to other more notable rugby countries without considering any context, quite suspicious that if you are against repository articles why is it that you have only flagged this article for deletion, when there are much more and much less significant articles out there?--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was making a point and asking the question as to why you've singled out this article if you are so against repository articles? Also you have completely ignored the notability of the sport in the country, and the country's contribution to Asian rugby.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You can talk about the country's contibution in Sri Lanka national rugby union team. I will nominate others as well. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't find any policy that forbids or discourages such lists. The fact that the information in the lists is already available somewhere else outside Wikipedia is not a hinderance. If it wasn't, the list would be original research after all, and that is not allowed. As to the notability of the results of the Sri Lanka national rugby union that would depend more on the coverage the team gets in local media then it's current international performance. I can't make a judgement on that but editors from Sri Lanka may be able to. Notability doesn't say that more famous sports teams are more notable then less famous ones. Calistemon (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * why did then the Sydney Grammar old boys rugby club article recently get deleted? It is less famous. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That article was deleted because it failed WP:GNG (I voted delete), not because of anything to do with a lack of fame. -- Shudde  talk 08:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Calistemon and Blackknight. No reason for non-notability given other than the information can be found elsewhere (like everything on wikipedia), and that the team aren't tier 1 (a term no longer used btw). Rugby union is a very popular and high profile sport in Sri Lanka despite their lack of success. This list is notable. Poorly rationalised nom. -- Shudde  talk 22:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep No policy cited as a reason for deletion.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * commentI refer all keep voters to WP:NSEASONS. whilst major team season articles may be notable, this guideline clearly states WP is not a stats directory. These articles clearly are just stats directory. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. But from WP:NSEASONS: "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." Obviously an individual year isn't going to be notable for an individual article but an international sports team clearly would have enough sources to justify an article, thus there would be sufficient coverage of all of their results for there to warrant an article on them. 11:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't see how NSEASONS applies here. How can individual seasons possibly be more notable than say List of Australia national rugby union team test match results (which LibStar also put up for deletion). This makes no sense to me. -- Shudde  talk 08:05, 26 December 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.