This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisTheDude (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 5 April 2008 (→Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team: rsp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:07, 5 April 2008 by ChrisTheDude (talk | contribs) (→Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team: rsp)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team
- Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is a sub-stub article on a non-notable sporting event referenced only to primary sources (thereby failing WP:N), with no meaningful content (which makes it a candidate for speedy deletion). This is a list entry mistakenly created as an article merely to remove a redlink in a template. I speedy-deleted a previous version after it was tagged as a copyvio, and it's only becuase it feels inappropriate for me to do a second speedy that I bring it to AFD rather than speedy-deleting it per WP:CSD#A3. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No assertation of notability but I don't think it falls under any speedy criterion.
I'm just curious, how is this "a list entry mistakenly created as an article merely to remove a red link"?Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)- You were too quick in your response, I hadn't finished the nomination. :) It's speediable per WP:CSD#A3: "No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images." The redlink issue arises from the template, which would contain a redlink if this article didn't exist; an article which merely restates its title serves no other purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I get it now. It's too early for me to think... but I did make yet another unnecessary link to red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- You were too quick in your response, I hadn't finished the nomination. :) It's speediable per WP:CSD#A3: "No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images." The redlink issue arises from the template, which would contain a redlink if this article didn't exist; an article which merely restates its title serves no other purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do we think it belongs on the template? If so, then having a stub seems sensible. It might encourage people to expand it. If not, then it should be removed from there too. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't that starting from the wrong end of the issue? Looking at the template first seems like the tail wagging the dog :( Surely the first question is whether the subject is notable enough for an article, and inclusuion on the template is a subsidiary question which arises only if notability is established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Possible weak keep: It is only a stub so reference deficiency may not be fatal. As for notability, it is a national team, so maybe it qualifies. I think most junior national sport teams have articles. There are loads of articles about US college football teams although that might be different as adults actually seem to follow college football in the US. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- NB The history of this article is not fully visible, so is worth summarising:
- Created on 3 March 2008 by User:Alexsanderson83 with content "The Irish Schoolboys' rugby union team is the national team for secondary school students in Ireland." plus stub tags and navigation template
- 27 March: tagged by me as unref and nn, and PRODded as "16-word unreferenced sub-stub article which neither asserts the notability of the subject nor offers any evidence of it; it just restates the title"
- 1 April: deleted by User:Jmlk17 as expired PROD
- 21:22 3 April: recreated by User:Alexsanderson83 with same content, and a references section referencing only primary sources
- 21:23 3 April: bot-tagged as a copyvio
- 21:24 3 April: Speedily deleted within 2 minutes by User:Cobaltbluetony
- 21:25 3 April: Recreated by User:Alexsanderson83
- 21:26 3 April: bot-tagged agian as a copyvio
- 21:26 3 April: Speedily deleted again by User:Cobaltbluetony
- 21:27 3 April: Recreated yet again by User:Alexsanderson83
- 21:27 3 April: bot-tagged yet agian as a copyvio
- 5 April 06:02, speedily deleted by BrownHairedGirl -- (Speedy deleted per (CSD A1), was a very short article providing little or no context. using TW)
- 06:54, 5 April 2008 recreated yet again by User:Alexsanderson83
- At this point, it should probably be salted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It doesn't even work as a stub. The article doesn't add anything to the title, other than to tell us that "schoolboy" means high school boys rather than elementary school boys. "Ireland national schoolboy rugby union team" means the national team (of Ireland) for secondary school students (hence, "schoolboy") who play rugby union. No content, no sources, no assertion of notability. Even if it were sourced, would it be any more notable than, say, the Nevada all-state high school basketball team? Mandsford (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with most of what you say, but not the last bit: Nevada is a sub-unit of a country, but Ireland is a country. If this topic has a claim to notability, it's in the fact that it it is a national team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Luksuh 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and (in view of the history) salt. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - at no point was it a copyright violation. Another website mirrors what wikipedia shows and that was the link.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had not added to the article as there was a bot mis-firing. I shall work this article up to decent standard.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Admin comment: I was apparently in error in deleting this article as a copyvio. Had I looked more closely at the website listed as the copyright holder, I would have seen that it itself was a mirror of this article. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. That being said, I am uncertain as to how this team fits into the levels of pre-professional teams/leagues permitted by WP:FOOTYN, so I'm going to call on another user I know to be more well-versed in this area to comment. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- As it's not a football team, FOOTYN is not relevant.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. That being said, I am uncertain as to how this team fits into the levels of pre-professional teams/leagues permitted by WP:FOOTYN, so I'm going to call on another user I know to be more well-versed in this area to comment. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - the article about the England national under-16 football team is in the similar state as this article was. I believe the major issue was with the shortness of the article and the inherent problems that came of the article being so short.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)