![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Hi all. Just some advice that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby union has been read by at least one editor as stating that International rugby players in the pre-professional era can never satisfy the guideline and therefore WP:GNG must be strictly applied (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hirschberg). This seems to me to be an absurd and tendentious reading but perhaps some clarification is needed. Cheers, Mattinbgn ( talk) 00:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This is as it appears now:
I suggest rewording as follows:
Comments? -- Bob ( talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed your sentence "Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG." I don't think you can/should put this in there as players still have to meet GNG even if they meet any of the specific criteria for any sport. This is spelled out clearly in NSPORTS in a number of places so probably doesn't have to be reiterated here, and the current wording implies those who meet the criteria are notable without meeting GNG which isn't true. Otherwise I have no opinion since I know little of the sport. - DJSasso ( talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Definitely agree that Bob's revised list is a significant improvement. In response to The-Pope, I don't quite see why there would be any need for duplication with the heading structure I've suggested. In any case, thinking again, a single unified list might be better still, with the three amateur categories brought into a single list:
BlueThird ( talk) 02:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this is on the right track, but have a few more comments. I am not overly familiar with the tier system, but a quick look seems to suggest that nations can be promoted. Georgia and Namibia are said to be tier 2 here, [1] but wikipedia classifies them as tier 3 (Russia has been promoted too I believe). While it probably won't be an issue if teams are only promoted, if nations are demoted to tier 3 a lot of players who were notable under these guidelines as written would suddenly not be. Maybe point 1 should be reworded to something like played in, coached or administered a nation that has at some point since ???? [whatever date the three tier system came in] been classified as first or second tier or, to cover such an eventuality. I don't think the year 1871 is needed as it starts off saying A Rugby Union person and if they were involved before 1871 it would not have been with Rugby union. Maybe point 2 (and the other related ones) should not use "finals" so no one could potentially misunderstand and think that they have to actually get to the finals at the tournament. AIRcorn (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, comments? -- Bob ( talk) 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I will post these to the WP:RU/N and WP:RU on July 1st as I will assume consensus if no other comments made by then. -- Bob247 ( talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No reason not to put that in the notes. Already listed through the link as well. -- Bob247 ( talk) 18:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Posted to WP:RU/N -- Bob247 ( talk) 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is any consideration for female players who have played for a National Team at the Women's Rugby World Cup but have not appeared at the semi-final level or any international tournaments sanctioned by the IRB such as the Women's Sevens World Series, the Sevens World Cup, the Women's Nations Cup or the Women's Six Nations. -- Tamariki ( talk) 19:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If a club has had no feature length articles in major news magazines/sources/books but only coverage in the form of match reports/training schedules, should an article be created? The Pinner and Grammerians RFC is currently being considered for deletion under this standard. However, I posit that 80% of the clubs listed in Wikipedia are in the same potential situtaion of failing the standard being set for inclusion in this Afd. If this article is deleted, then most of the articles describing rugby union clubs should be deleted for the same reasons. In this vain we will have no coverage of any clubs outside of the top tiers of rugby union. If that is the consensus, then sobeit and I will start nominating entire categories of clubs. However, I thought that the members of WP:RU (who should have been notified by the nominator through simple courtesy) should have input to this potential precedent. -- Bob247 ( talk) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't use soccer clubs as a guide to rugby. They've got huge amounts of money involved in just about everything, and a thousand times more coverage than they actually deserve!
It should be pointed out that while there are a number of professional rugby union clubs out there, plenty of amateur clubs qualify as notable. The majority of RU history has been (officially) amateur, bar recent professionalism and frequent shamateurism. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 11:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Criteria as I see them:
It would be good to have a few more. Sadly, I'm not sure my own old club really qualifies!-- MacRusgail ( talk) 20:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Amalgamating the suggestions above I have worded the following:
A rugby union club is deemed notable if it has
Comments? -- Bob247 ( talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
These are good, but I still feel that they leave out ome notable sides outside the major playing nations.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This seems to have been forgotten. Any objections to moving Bobs numbered points above along with one for USA college teams participated in the United States of America College Premier Division into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability page. It should at least give a base for any further reworkings and doesn't disqualify any clubs that meet GNG through other means. AIRcorn (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed slightly the criteria for USA college rugby teams. I narrowed the criteria to teams that have played in top college competitions for more than 1 year. And I broadened the criteria slightly to include teams playing in the Collegiate Rugby Championship, the highest profile US college rugby competition. I thought I should note the changes here, since the criteria had been discussed on this page, in case someone disagrees. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 12:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Is #2 too broad a definition? It seems to allow for almost any club in a country with a high performance union which seems a bit excessive. Perhaps
played in an officially recognized national or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union
would be better. noq ( talk) 19:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
In the light of the above debate a visit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TSB Ravensburg might be of interest Agathoclea ( talk) 10:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Good day. I notice there is no notability guidelines for competitions. Might I propose something along these lines:
A rugby union competition is deemed notable if
This allows for national leagues and cups, but also other competitions that are ranked highly enough to attract the top national clubs to participate. Any thoughts? Mooretwin ( talk) 10:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Mooretwin: I just noticed this. I think that adding a notability competition guideline is a good idea, but I don't agree with this particular guideline as proposed. I imagine that for many countries outside of the 17 High Performance unions, the top national competitions are not notable. On the other hand, for counties where rugby is quite popular, second division competitions would be notable (e.g., the RFU Championship). How about we move this conversation to the main WP:RU talk page, where we can get the benefit of broader input? Barryjjoyce ( talk) 03:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribute Somerset 3 South. I am listing this here as it may impact many other articles and raises questions about the notability guidelines here. Derek Andrews ( talk) 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Merge redundant RU notability pages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Hi all. Just some advice that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby union has been read by at least one editor as stating that International rugby players in the pre-professional era can never satisfy the guideline and therefore WP:GNG must be strictly applied (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hirschberg). This seems to me to be an absurd and tendentious reading but perhaps some clarification is needed. Cheers, Mattinbgn ( talk) 00:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This is as it appears now:
I suggest rewording as follows:
Comments? -- Bob ( talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed your sentence "Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG." I don't think you can/should put this in there as players still have to meet GNG even if they meet any of the specific criteria for any sport. This is spelled out clearly in NSPORTS in a number of places so probably doesn't have to be reiterated here, and the current wording implies those who meet the criteria are notable without meeting GNG which isn't true. Otherwise I have no opinion since I know little of the sport. - DJSasso ( talk) 01:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Definitely agree that Bob's revised list is a significant improvement. In response to The-Pope, I don't quite see why there would be any need for duplication with the heading structure I've suggested. In any case, thinking again, a single unified list might be better still, with the three amateur categories brought into a single list:
BlueThird ( talk) 02:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this is on the right track, but have a few more comments. I am not overly familiar with the tier system, but a quick look seems to suggest that nations can be promoted. Georgia and Namibia are said to be tier 2 here, [1] but wikipedia classifies them as tier 3 (Russia has been promoted too I believe). While it probably won't be an issue if teams are only promoted, if nations are demoted to tier 3 a lot of players who were notable under these guidelines as written would suddenly not be. Maybe point 1 should be reworded to something like played in, coached or administered a nation that has at some point since ???? [whatever date the three tier system came in] been classified as first or second tier or, to cover such an eventuality. I don't think the year 1871 is needed as it starts off saying A Rugby Union person and if they were involved before 1871 it would not have been with Rugby union. Maybe point 2 (and the other related ones) should not use "finals" so no one could potentially misunderstand and think that they have to actually get to the finals at the tournament. AIRcorn (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, comments? -- Bob ( talk) 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I will post these to the WP:RU/N and WP:RU on July 1st as I will assume consensus if no other comments made by then. -- Bob247 ( talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No reason not to put that in the notes. Already listed through the link as well. -- Bob247 ( talk) 18:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Posted to WP:RU/N -- Bob247 ( talk) 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is any consideration for female players who have played for a National Team at the Women's Rugby World Cup but have not appeared at the semi-final level or any international tournaments sanctioned by the IRB such as the Women's Sevens World Series, the Sevens World Cup, the Women's Nations Cup or the Women's Six Nations. -- Tamariki ( talk) 19:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If a club has had no feature length articles in major news magazines/sources/books but only coverage in the form of match reports/training schedules, should an article be created? The Pinner and Grammerians RFC is currently being considered for deletion under this standard. However, I posit that 80% of the clubs listed in Wikipedia are in the same potential situtaion of failing the standard being set for inclusion in this Afd. If this article is deleted, then most of the articles describing rugby union clubs should be deleted for the same reasons. In this vain we will have no coverage of any clubs outside of the top tiers of rugby union. If that is the consensus, then sobeit and I will start nominating entire categories of clubs. However, I thought that the members of WP:RU (who should have been notified by the nominator through simple courtesy) should have input to this potential precedent. -- Bob247 ( talk) 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't use soccer clubs as a guide to rugby. They've got huge amounts of money involved in just about everything, and a thousand times more coverage than they actually deserve!
It should be pointed out that while there are a number of professional rugby union clubs out there, plenty of amateur clubs qualify as notable. The majority of RU history has been (officially) amateur, bar recent professionalism and frequent shamateurism. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 11:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Criteria as I see them:
It would be good to have a few more. Sadly, I'm not sure my own old club really qualifies!-- MacRusgail ( talk) 20:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Amalgamating the suggestions above I have worded the following:
A rugby union club is deemed notable if it has
Comments? -- Bob247 ( talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
These are good, but I still feel that they leave out ome notable sides outside the major playing nations.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This seems to have been forgotten. Any objections to moving Bobs numbered points above along with one for USA college teams participated in the United States of America College Premier Division into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability page. It should at least give a base for any further reworkings and doesn't disqualify any clubs that meet GNG through other means. AIRcorn (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed slightly the criteria for USA college rugby teams. I narrowed the criteria to teams that have played in top college competitions for more than 1 year. And I broadened the criteria slightly to include teams playing in the Collegiate Rugby Championship, the highest profile US college rugby competition. I thought I should note the changes here, since the criteria had been discussed on this page, in case someone disagrees. Barryjjoyce ( talk) 12:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Is #2 too broad a definition? It seems to allow for almost any club in a country with a high performance union which seems a bit excessive. Perhaps
played in an officially recognized national or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union
would be better. noq ( talk) 19:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
In the light of the above debate a visit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TSB Ravensburg might be of interest Agathoclea ( talk) 10:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Good day. I notice there is no notability guidelines for competitions. Might I propose something along these lines:
A rugby union competition is deemed notable if
This allows for national leagues and cups, but also other competitions that are ranked highly enough to attract the top national clubs to participate. Any thoughts? Mooretwin ( talk) 10:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Mooretwin: I just noticed this. I think that adding a notability competition guideline is a good idea, but I don't agree with this particular guideline as proposed. I imagine that for many countries outside of the 17 High Performance unions, the top national competitions are not notable. On the other hand, for counties where rugby is quite popular, second division competitions would be notable (e.g., the RFU Championship). How about we move this conversation to the main WP:RU talk page, where we can get the benefit of broader input? Barryjjoyce ( talk) 03:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribute Somerset 3 South. I am listing this here as it may impact many other articles and raises questions about the notability guidelines here. Derek Andrews ( talk) 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Merge redundant RU notability pages. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)