Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby Manitoba


 * 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. No consensus has been reached, even after 3 relistings and 1 month at AfD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Rugby Manitoba

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sentence about regional sports union which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NRU. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of rugby union-related deletion discussions. -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is one of the provincial rugby union organisations in Canada, which fall immediately below the national one, Rugby Canada. Therefore it is one of the most notable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. Note that nominator did not list this nomination on rugby union pages.
 * Can you provide a policy based argument that does not sound like WP:INHERITED?- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what "inherited" refers to here, and have never heard of it before in this context. I'm not a newbie on Wikipedia, but would appreciate the use of plain English here, and shouldn't have to go to some obscure corner of Wikipedia to find such terms out. [Edit to add - Went to the link in question, and still do not see the relevance here.]


 * My point about being the next tier beneath the national organisation sticks. I suspect your issue here is that you are not involved with rugby at all, at any level, and probably are not close to anyone who is either, so you have assumed that this is somehow not notable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) p.s. All of these Canadian rugby articles should have been listed together.
 * Comment - WP:INHERITED was first introduced into WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions in 2007. See here. It's been addressed in AfDs over 800 times See here.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The premise of WP:INHERITED is that because something has an affiliation with something that does meet notability requirements on Wikipedia, does not mean that it meets the notability requirements then itself. As for use of Jargon as in your other post this is a policy based debate which means jargon will be used to prove points and provide policy based arguments which what these discussions should be based on, as they are not a vote.WP:AFDEQ may be helpful to understand the AFD process.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They don't derive notability from their parent organisation, they derive notability from being second tier.


 * Regarding jargon, new terms seem to be cooked up every day on Wikipedia, which are not known to the majority of regular users. It is impossible for anyone to keep track of it all.-MacRùsgail (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And in there lies the rub, WP:Notability or WP:NRU doesn't says anything about 2nd tier being notable it speaks to national unions or teams being notable. Therefore for notability to be established for the regional unions WP:GNG applies. Take a serious look at this page and tell us, what does it tell us that the list in the Rugby Canada article doesn't? If it's just the link to their homepage that can be added to the Rugby Canada page otherwise this page is currently serving no purpose and has not been effectively expanded to offer any further insight into this union. I would support User:Раціональне анархіст's idea of a redirect. WP:PAGEDECIDE.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 1 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Rugby Canada.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:35, 5 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:31, 13 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, - The Herald (here I am) 16:00, 24 January 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.