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 Delete all, particularly since the only valid arguments are delete ones. Again, users are reminded to cite policy in these discussions. Whether or not they think that something not existing yet means it cannot possibly be notable, or whether or not they think that their standard of non-notability != ours, it is irrelevant. These are sports clubs; keep arguers cite WP:ORG with evidence. Delete arguers, cite WP:ORG and try to counter said evidence. That's how it's meant to work. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Wolverines

[edit]

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

This is a series of articles on announced, proposed, or simply rumored semi-professional rugby league clubs in North America. Most appear to exist in some form, but that doesn't establish that they're notable. None of them have substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources establishing their notability. Most of them are sourced only to this American Rugby News article or this blog post, which mention that the American National Rugby League wants to set up teams in these cities; but it's not substantial coverage, and I can't find any evidence that the teams have played games or have serious plans of joining the AMNRL or another notable league in the future. This blog article on the Southern Chiefs specifically says that as of this month the club hasn't played any games and has no definite plans for joining a league. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles are:

Keep most - Although I don't follow rugby and don't really feel like I am qualified to state wether these are notable or not as they pertain to rugby they certainly seem to fail the notability criteria. --Kumioko (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had to delete for the one team because it hadn't played any games or been accepted yet. Know that other teams have been added, some of which have sufficient references and I believe local notability in their respective areas I am withdrawing my Delete. Being non-notable to me does not make them Non notable. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If they join a league and start playing games then they can be recreated but until plans are confirmed - which sounds like it would be August at the earliest - they shouldn't be here as they don't exist and may not exist. Mattlore (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ditto Mattlore. Rugbyhelp (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I see Youndbuckerz fear that nobody will want to create these pages later as a good argument for deletion. If nobody is interested enough to edit the wikipedia page the notability has to be almost nil.Rugbyhelp (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - look i have went through and obtained all this info on the game in the US. that is fine with me if it is deleted but i hate to see them not re-created when they do exist! then when they do i have to delete all other info on sports in la, denver, seattle, san fran becuase the team doesnt exist yet then i have to re add the info and re do all over again which is very stressfull and takes a lot of time. the point being, is as long as SOMEBODY re-creates them when they do exist and are actually involved in the competition as ive already just about had enough of editing on here!Youndbuckerz 08:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete all - There is no significant coverage about these teams that would justify an article at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look here is what i think. Obviously i'm not the one who's going to delete the page but to the person who does please consider my thoughts first. If they do get deleted then all images have to be removed, certain info on certain pages such as Sports in Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle, Las Vegas etc.. will all have to be removed. Then eventually when this competition does exist nobody adds info. I am the one who will have to do it all images, website, sources, references, infobox, something which takes a lot of time and patience which i am starting to lose now! If you want you can just wait until the summer of 2011 (the said start date) and if none of this occurs then they can be deleted or kept or whatever. So finally once again my point is consider CAREFULLY whether you choose to delete the pages because if you do it will be hard to find someone as committed as me to re add all the info when this all eventually does exist as it will make peoples jobs on here a lot easier as i will not be around here much anymore. Thanks for your co-operations and it does give the clubs promotion as well which is why i'm editing on hereYoundbuckerz 16:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

From the talk page: "So, I ask you this- what justifies a sport team? Some or Most have applied for, and received LLC's (Limited Liability Company). So, let's say Jo opens a Cafe'. Jo decides he wants to put his store on WikiPedia. Someone comes along and says, "Sorry Jo, you have not sold a single item in your first few days of business, therefore, you are not considered to be an entity". I have not bothered to look at the criteria for adding data to WP, so if I'm wrong, then please feel free to shoot me down, but, does it REALLY say a team that has not competed yet is not officially classed as a team? Best of luck with your deletions... Muppets" from User:SeattleForce on 12:24, 30 January 2011. Mattlore (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Greater Western Sydney Giants have a wikipedia page and they have not even played yet... Youndbuckerz 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greater Western Sydney FC has 19 reliable sources while these articles have 1-3 sources. Mattlore (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But clubs like Denver, Seattle, Dallas (http://dallasrlfc.com/Home.html) have websites and update with regular news on what is happening with the club at their websites so they are likely to be kept?Youndbuckerz 09:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What you need is independent sources - maybe the local community newspaper has done a profile on the new club being set up in their region for example? It would also help if the league structure had been confirmed. Mattlore (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Denver Wolverines have done a newspaper article. The league structure is on the WAMNRL website, based on location, Pacific, Midwest, Southwest and Northwest. The fixtures vary based on the team's location. They also have other tournaments planned such as LA 9s, Dallas 9s, Philadelphia 9s and War at the Shore, Semi-pro tryouts, etc.... There may not be much news articles- or they are very hard to find! But you must remember rugby league is hardly a recognised sport in that country- most wouldnt know the difference between league and union and the sport wouldn't get much exposure thru news websites. Clubs like denver and seattle may have more resources than other clubs. The best thing to do before deleting everything would be to just wait and see.. I would hate to have to re-do all of this hard work and it does give the clubs some advertisement thru wikipedia but all of this stuff might just be pie in the sky as they have tried numerous times to setup things on the West Coast but things have never went as planned. Only time will tell..Youndbuckerz 08:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Whether any of this comes to fruition in the future is highly speculative. Future events are generally not notable. And "...it does give the clubs some advertisement thru wikipedia..." is a very poor reason for an article as Wikipedia is not for advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq ok you say future events are generally not notable how come there is pages for the 2015 Rugby World Cup, the 2013 Rugby League World Cup, 2012 London Olympics, 2014 FIFA World Cup? These pages may not seem notable to all of you because it is not covered by any third-party reliable sources and as i have mentioned before; How do you expect this to be covered by any reliable sources as it is currently only an amateur sport competing with more popular sports such as American Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, etc.. with a country with over 300 million? As i said JUST WAIT! til the said date they've come further then before by actually establishing clubs where in past years they have failed to do that give it a chance please do not just rush to delete things, what's with wikipedia these days?? Eveybody wants everything to be deleted have you not thought about the hard work i have done to set this up and people suddenly come rushing to delete it all the time this happens to me. Never have you given me a fair go in the past 5 years i have been here.!!!!>:(Youndbuckerz 08:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply - Other articles are not germane to this discussion. If you feel that these other articles ought to be deleted, you may nominate them for deletion so long as you aren;'t doing just to make a point. You are asking why there is a rush to delete these articles. I would turn the question around and ask why there is such a rush to create article when there is insufficient sources to support the article. -- Whpq (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Youndbuckers, please don't take this personally. I appreciate the work you've put into rugby league articles, and I hope you continue. But the bottom line is that verifiability is non-negotiable; if there are no reliable sources establishing that a subject is notable, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. It's no big deal to recreate articles if sources are found in the future.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 1 February 2011 (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.