Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribute Somerset 3 South


 * 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 English rugby union system until such time as merge is done or notability requirements change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Tribute Somerset 3 South

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have looked at WikiProject Rugby union/Notability and the levels at English rugby union system but do not feel meet they notability requirements for Rugby competition articles (or WP:GNG &mdash; Rod talk 10:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet the notability requirement:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP I would ideally like to keep this (and related pages) for the reasons being that there needs to be some sort of reference and coverage of lower league rugby union which is not covered anywhere else. I agree that the Somerset league is not the most notable leagues in the rugby union system but then again there are plenty of wikipedia sports pages which are not particularly notable.  What worries me most is that the rugby union notability rulings (laws in rugby union) are extremely limited - apparently if a league is not a top league then it is not notable.  Considering the English league alone has dozens of divisions below the Premiership then all these pages would fail on notability.  I would be worried that if the Somerset divisions go then all the divisions would swiftly follow (this has happed previously in other subjects like a chain of dominoes).  What this page (and other pages need) may be more varied references as opposed to deletion.  Perhaps another alternative is to group the Somerset league divisions into one page.   If you look at the football pages they are extremely thorough and well documented - let's try and keep rugby union to the same standard. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    14:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP I would ideally like to keep this (and related pages) for the reasons being that there needs to be some sort of reference and coverage of lower league rugby union which is not covered anywhere else. I agree that the Somerset league is not the most notable leagues in the rugby union system but then again there are plenty of wikipedia sports pages which are not particularly notable.  What worries me most is that the rugby union notability rulings (laws in rugby union) are extremely limited - apparently if a league is not a top league then it is not notable.  Considering the English league alone has dozens of divisions below the Premiership then all these pages would fail on notability.  I would be worried that if the Somerset divisions go then all the divisions would swiftly follow (this has happed previously in other subjects like a chain of dominoes).  What this page (and other pages need) may be more varied references as opposed to deletion.  Perhaps another alternative is to group the Somerset league divisions into one page.   If you look at the football pages they are extremely thorough and well documented - let's try and keep rugby union to the same standard. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP I very much agree with Jgjsmith006. There is an argument for grouping the lower Somerset league divisions (and the Beds, Herts & Oxon divisions below the Berks/Bucks & Oxon Championship) into one page on the grounds that these two sets of county leagues almost exclusively contain reserve teams but apart from that ALL of the rugby union leagues should be kept. Rillington (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for your comments. I noticed you were the primary authors which is why I informed you of the discussion. I based this nomination on the WikiProject Rugby union/Notability which says for competitions:
 * A rugby union competition is deemed notable if:
 * it is the top national club league competition of any nation,
 * it is the top national club cup competition of any nation, or
 * the competing clubs are wholly or mostly members of the top national club league competition.
 * Do you think any of these apply to these leagues? It would also be useful to make the case to keep the articles about these competitions in terms of the expectations at WP:GNG which suggests that they should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".&mdash; Rod talk 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The guidelines are far too narrow and need rewriting. If such strict guidelines were followed on other subjects we would be having thousands of discussions, like this, on Wikipedia.Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you say, those guidelines are far too narrow. English rugby union has an established league structure of five levels of national competition with a network of regional and local leagues which feed into the national leagues. Therefore all of the local leagues which form part of this national network are notable and should have separate articles. This is the accepted notability criteria for English football and this same criteria should also apply to English rugby union. Rillington (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with this. Going by the guidelines there would be no pages below Premiership level despite the fact that there are notable teams in the Championship (2nd division) who have had Premiership experience (Bedford Blues, Bristol, London Scottish, London Welsh, Rotherham Titans, Yorkshire Carnegie) as well as other teams in both the Championship and divisions below who have won national cup competitions in the past (Moseley, Coventry) or famous local clubs who have hosted international teams such as New Zealand in the past (Redruth, Camborne etc).  The guidelines have a closed minded mentality which is similar to that of Premiership clubs who very recently wanted to shut that division out to lower league teams - a move hugely unpopular with both clubs and fans and thankfully has been thrown out (though they may well try again).  Anyway back to the point in hand, I would argue that any league competition in the English league system that is run by the RFU is notable as it is theoretically possible that a team from a regional division such as Somerset could be promoted all the way up to the Premiership as it now stands and in the case for teams like Jersey who have gone all the way up through the divisions to the Championship.  In the case of Somerset if you remove pages regarding to that league then there is no reference points to fans from that region other than information relating to big teams such as Bath.  I feel that people from Somerset (and other regions) may not even know they have a local team until they go to their town page (on wikipedia) and see a rugby team under the sports section and can then click on that link for the club.  People may argue that a team (or league) is too small to be notable, but we may as well argue that town pages are not notable as well and nominate them for deletion (and so on and so on). Jgjsmith006 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Delete or at best Merge, including the others listed by the nominator. It clearly doesn't meet any current guidelines, or the spirit of GNG. To be fair I think that more of an effort could have been made to get wider consensus when the competition guidelines were suggested at WP:RU/N, but that is the place to be having that discussion, not here. Where one draws the line I don't know, but it certainly isn't level 11. Many other arguments made above in favour of keeping this article are fallacious; notability is generally accepted as not being inheritable WP:INHERITED; likewise WP:OTHERSTUFF in relation to the comments about soccer; and WP:ATA deals with the argument that a team 'might' make it to the championships. Derek Andrews (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Weak Keep Topic is notable but sources should be improved Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Block evasion -   Supdiop  ( T 🔹 C )  08:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete Agree with the points raised by User:Derek Andrews and the nominator. The leagues do not pass WP:GNG as they have not had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge as a summary of the leagues, their place in the ladder, and a brief mention of recent promotions/relegations. The matches certainly get plenty of mentions in the local paper, though that said, plenty of things get a mention in the local paper that I wouldn't put on Wikipedia. Essentially, I think one article covering all of these leagues would be suitable, but I'm not going to be the one to put the work in to demonstrate notability and merge them all together, so I won't shed too big a tear if they get deleted. Harrias talk 10:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Merge into a summary per Harrias, with no prejudice against a review being conducted after an RFC is run on the rugby notability policy to assess whether lower tier leagues are notable or not. Blackmane (talk) 05:12, 30 November 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.