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. De728631 (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Counties North

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NRU. Insufficient reliable secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Also is not an article as it is currently written. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is one of a set of rugby union leagues catalogued at English rugby union system. I've added a little context and a ref. I think it's highly disruptive to nominate a single article for deletion out of such a large series of articles. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a directory not an article. Fails WP:N and WP:NOTDIR.--Charles (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Janet says, this is a league which forms part of the English rugby union pyramid and for this reason alone it should not be deleted. I have also expanded the article be adding an infobox as well as listing the clubs participating in the league this season.(Rillington (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Last relist. I would like to hear about whether a merge to a broader-scope article may be a suitable outcome. This discussion has implications for many of the other articles listed in Template:Rugby union in England, so I feel it is worth taking the extra time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No - there should be no merging of individual league articles and each league should have its own separate article, as has always been the case. Individual articles for each rugby union division in England has always worked perfectly well, as it does for the Welsh rugby union system and for that matter, the English non league football pyramid. This article should never have been proposed for deletion in the first place and to underline once again, the article (and all the other RU individual leagues articles) should be kept.(Rillington (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Per Janet and Rillington. As it is part of the English Rugby pyramid, it shouldn't be deleted. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with other league articles. Delete or Merge - with other league articles.--Bob247 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is part of the English rugby union league system and we should be giving the complete picture. Give people some time to develop the article. Jowaninpensans (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what Janet and I have tried to do and I also tried to do with other leagues whose articles had been very basic, such as National League 2 North to ensure that all leagues have an infobox, introduction and list of teams currently in that league.

I noticed recently that some of the lower leagues did not have articles. As there is no indication that there was a notability issue with the lower league articles already there (I previously had a set of non league football articles binned on notability grounds just after joining wikipedia which is why I looked for any indications of notability issues with these articles I decided to create) I decided to take the time to create starter articles for those leagues which did not have an article, consisting of an infobox, a brief introduction and a list of teams participating this season. I completed this task a few days ago. It never occurred to me that an administrator would propose binning all of them (worded as a "broader-scope article", presumably one article which would result in all of my articles being deleted) despite there being no actual breach of any wikipedia rules or guidelines regarding English rugby union leagues. If these articles are binned this would be the second time that a lot of my work was deleted and this time it would not be due to any previously set rules about notability. It would make me think that no matter what contribution I make or article I create, it seems destined for the bin and that would make it very likely this time that I would leave wikipedia because here I haven't actually broken any rules.(Rillington (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

PS I've just noticed that the majority of my articles which you are proposing to be deleted en masse (which you seem to be indicating would be replaced by this broader-scope article which presumably would be one article about all of the regional RU leagues in England) have already become part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union prohect (see the talk pages of the majority of the articles I've recently created, including all of the Yorkshire, Durham/Northumberland, Essex, Somerset, Beds/Bucks/Oxon and Gloucestershire articles I've created) and if they had been considered to be not notable then the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union would not have accepted the articles as part of this project. In addition, my articles about the Yorkshire leagues have also become part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire project and the north east articles have been accepted as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject North East England project. Maybe therefore it can be explained to me why this discussion is even taking place, given that my articles have been included in, and therefore presumably approved by, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union project.(Rillington (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

With regards to notable – would seem to apply to multiple articles on wikipedia and in the wikiproject! Rugby union in Cyprus and Cyprus national rugby union team for example, hardly notable for rugby union or Cyprus, but it does help to give the bigger picture of how rugby union is developing within Europe. Should we be removing these articles as well, or have one article on nth tier countries in Europe. Jowaninpensans (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing in this article to indicate that the subject is notable enough for a separate article. It should probably only be covered in limited detail in the English rugby union system article. – Pee Jay 15:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't articles like Berks/Bucks & Oxon 1, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 2, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 3 North, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 3 South, Berks/Bucks & Oxon 4 be merged into one article i.e. Berks/Bucks & Oxon (rugby union league)? And indeed, all the Midland competitions in the Rugby union in England template could potentially be merged. In WP:Football, all lower level divisions within the same system are all in the same article (see Southend Borough Combination, Bristol and District Football League, East Riding County League etc.) There isn't an article for each individual division, but there are articles for the leagues themselves. Bristol and District Football League would be 7 different articles otherwise, one for each division. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is potentially the arguement for the Berks/Bucks and Oxon leagues below the BBO Championship (ie those mentioned above) to be merged into one article on the grounds that they all contain non first teams and it's very possible that these leagues actually fall outside of the pyramid in terms of promotion and relegation. Apart from that, I continue to think that all the other leagues should have separate articles due to them being semi-regional or large county-wide leagues, and I'm not just saying that because all of the time and effort I put in to creating all these articles, almost 50 altogether, would be deleted en masse if they were all merged into a single article for anything below the National 3 leagues which is what the administator seems to be proposing, far more than last time when I had around 8 articles deleted.

Regarding the comparison between non league football and lower league rugby made in the post, all of the leagues eight to the bottom of the Midlands and Yorkshire divisions are semi-regional leagues, even at the bottom level of the pyramid and the teams at the bottom of the SE and SW divisions are either semi-regional or county-wide leagues whereas the football leagues at the lower reaches of the non league pyramid are much more localised than county-wide leagues.(Rillington (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is a tertiary source encyclopedia drawn from reliable secondary sources not a directory of primary source material. These leagues can all be covered in one article without any need to list every non-notable club. Those can be found in specialised sources linked to the article for anyone who really wants to know.--Charles (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Why do I get the feeling that these 47 articles are to be deleted in a few days time as nobody appears to recognise the efforts I have put in to create these articles and improve many of the other articles which are being proposed tor deletion as part of this massive cull. Once again, my time and effort is to count for nothing. However, to answer your point, I got the list of teams in each division from a reliable secondary source (clubs.rfu.com) as mentioned in the club infobox which I included with each article. I really did try to ensure that all 47 articles contained enough information and research to ensure that they were satisfactory and if people, not only the administrator proposing the mass removal of all my articles, had had these issues then why not raise them before I spent all these hours creating these 47 articles? It makes me wonder if I am just wasting my time working on wikipedia full stop.(Rillington (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per Janet. --MacRusgail (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.