Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roses Tournament


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Roses Tournament

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non Notable inter-university sports competition. Receives little or no coverage outside the two competing universities and as such fails WP:GNG. The vast majority of the article is un-sourced or only sourced with primary sources (such as the university own publications) and as such this article fails the WP:V policy. Codf1977 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to see more sourcing for the contents, but if the competition is what's described in the article, then it would qualify as notable. Every university in the world has its own unique traditions that are well-known to its alumni, whether it's a football rivalry or an annual campuswide event.  Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by then it would qualify as notable - since the General notability guidelines say that :
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article
 * As at the time of nomination there were exactly no refs from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, there is now one from the the BBC - "BBC - North Yorkshire - Sport - White spirit". Codf1977 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suspect that User:Mandsford probably doesn't understand how complete the lack of public interest in university sport is in England. Apart from the rivalry between Oxford and Cambridge in rowing and rugby union the level of public interest is precisely nil. As an example of this I would point out that my son came in the top 20 in UK student championships in four separate individual sports, but I (and, I'm sure, he) would find it absolutely ridiculous for anyone to write an encyclopedia article about him on that basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also see Articles for deletion/2008 Roses Tournament
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a second source can be provided to "prop up" the one independent reliable source currently in the article. University sport in the UK is completely non-notable outside the institution in question and is met only with mild apathy by those actualyl at the university.  I'd certainly dispute that things like this are "well-known to [...] alumni".  At the university I work at, if one of our sports teams' matches is attended by anything other than a small handful of mildly disinterested players' girlfriends then it's an unusual occurence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the article could do with more sourcing, but it's clear that somebody tried after the deletion was proposed and managed to find some references. More could probably be found over time. To Chris: this is slightly different from normal University sport. It is a competition over a single weekend between two Universities featuring a wide variety of sports, not just a couple of matches with no supporters. In some places it is claimed to be the largest University sport tournament in England, although from a brief look I can't find any reliable sources to back that up. If not the largest, it is certainly close though. To give you an idea of the scale, have a look at this summary video from last year: Also have a look at the number of supporters watching this rugby match:  I'd hardly call that a "small handful". 144.32.176.4 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 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.