Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Rebellion


 * 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 redirect to Dorr Rebellion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Rhode Island Rebellion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Semi-pro rugby league team with some local coverage Boleyn (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am bundling into this the more recent article Kodiak Rugby, LLC, which is just the parent company for the team, and has no separate notability claim.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I initially thought that you were nominating the Dorr Rebellion article.  The current article indeed doesn't demonstrate notability; wait until it gets print or journal or retrospective news coverage, or wait until it begins to get routine appearances in major sports publications and/or broadcast media.  Delete the parent company.  Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment, is the redirect you propose to Dorr Rebellion? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry that I wasn't clear; I figured that there weren't any alternative understandings.  Nyttend (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, primarily on a procedural basis. I'll note that every team in the USA Rugby League has an article. Deleting one of those articles fails WP:COMMONSENSE. If these teams are non-notable (and, as a semi-pro league, that's likely), then they should be nominated as a group and kept or delted/redirected as such. If, however, they are, then they should all be kept, instead of being potentially picked off piecemeal (and then re-created because "oh, why's this one a redlink?"). That said, if it's felt that this should be a "canary in the coal mine" case and then the others redirected (which would be the correct non-keep result here), redirect to USA Rugby League. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favor of nominating the rest of them, unless one or more has gotten significantly more coverage than most have. "Canary in the coal mine" — i.e. this one is an indicator of danger?  I'd be happy to treat this as a test case, with a followup AFD for all of the rest of them, saying basically "These all look to be in the same situation as the RI Rebellion, and AFD previously did X with it, so we ought to do X with all of these other ones, too".  Nyttend (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, The Bushranger, as far as I can tell you're not offering an opinion on the co-nomination, Kodiak Rugby, LLC. Could you add a vote on that, or if you intended your procedural-keep-or-redirect vote to apply to both, could you state that overtly?  Thanks.  Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did mean as a "test" to see if there was consensus for all from the one, yeah. As for Kodiak, I'm honestly not sure about that one. Since it apparently never played a game, I'd lean towards delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it best to take this as a test case and then look at bundling the others. There have been two valid redirect targets identified and no one considering this a notable team, so in this case a dab would be a good idea.

Rhode Island Rebellion may refer to:


 * USA Rugby League, Rhode Island Rebellion semi-professional rugby team
 * Dorr Rebellion, also known as Rhode Island Rebellion

Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say better to retarget it to the Dorr Rebellion and place a hatnote there, ; the Dorr Rebellion has been vastly more significant in the long run, so it should be considered the clear primary topic. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment That's a fair comment, Nyttend, I change my suggestion to match yours. I would suggest redirect/delete for Kodiak Rugby, LLC. Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: If that redirect is done, then Kodiak should be a flat out delete; I think I overdescribed it when I said that it was a parent company for the team, looks like it was rather a parent company for an intended team that ended up getting replaced by the Rebellion. Redirecting it over to the league would mean that the league article would have to include a mention of this bit of relative trivia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect Rhode Island Rebellion to  Dorr Rebellion, (an enduringly significant event that searchers are extremely likely to be lookinging for under the search term  "Rhode Island rebellion") Dorr should remain the primary, with a hatnote to whatever article that covers this team.  I suspect it makes sense at this point to keep info about this team in an article about the league; new, semi-professional sports leagues have a tendency to be short-lived.  If it proves notable, it can have an article named Rhode Island Rebellion (rugby), but the primary should be Door Rebellion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * note that I made a small edit to the page list because one of the players was linked to a character in a TV series. There are no bluelinked players on the team.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2016 (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.