Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability

Notability guidelines for players

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)

I have removed the offending statement. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And it was put back in due to a lack of edit summary explanation. A link to a show of consensus here would be useful. The problems I see with the current wording is that the whole page section is titled "professional sportspeople", so the applicabilty of the guidelines to amateurs pre 1990 should be explicitly stated (at all levels or only Test players?) and there is no definition of "first class" matches. The-Pope (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it again and opened up a debate on the talk page. The amateur thing rears it head on a regular basis. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely WP:ATHLETE applies here? If a player played at a time when there was no professional game, then as long as he played at the highest amateur level (e.g. full internationals, highest league in any country, highest cup competition in any country, etc.), that would confer notability. – PeeJay 07:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see this is being tackled (sorry) and to see FruitMonkey's edit. I too read the AfD in question, metaphorically threw my hands up in despair and made a note to come back to it later on. By that time, thankfully, the issue had been resolved, albeit in a rather unsatisfactory way, but it seems to me that part of the problem here is how the article is laid out. My personal view is that the guideline should be read so that both the professional and amateur standards are sub-categories of the 'notability guidelines on sportspersons', but that's not really what the headings indicate. If my interpretation does in fact represent the consensus, then perhaps someone should reset the headings. Otherwise, unfortunately, it seems there are editors who will stick by what they see as the letter of the law if that's what suits them at a particular moment. I'd also suggest that it wouldn't be unreasonable to state explicitly that any amateur who happens to meet the standards normally expected of a professional sportsperson (as was the case with Hirschberg) is automatically considered notable. Anyway, for whatever it's worth, here's my view of how the hierarchy of headings should actually be interpreted (with a minor rewrite of the heading for point 4 in this list):

1 Applicable policies and guidelines

2 Basic criteria

3 Notability guidelines on sports persons

3.1 Generally acceptable standards

3.2.1 Professional sports persons

3.2.2 Amateur sports persons

4 Notability guidelines on games and organisations

5 Notes.

BlueThird (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is as it appears now:

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has either:

1. Appeared in at least one test match, sevens competition, or fully professional domestic rugby competition, as player, referee, coach, or administrator, or,
2. Appeared in at least one first class rugby union match.

Players from the early days of rugby cannot meet these criteria, as they pre-date the era of first-class rugby, and must therefore pass WP:GNG.

I suggest rewording as follows:

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has:

1. played in, coached or administered a (now) first or second tier test nation since 1871 or,
2. played in, coached or administered a third tier test nation during an appearance at the men's rugby world cup finals or,
3. refereed a first or second tier nation test match since 1871 or match at the rugby world cup finals or,
4. played in, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
5. played in, coached, administered or refereed at the IRB Sevens World Series, Rugby World Cup Sevens finals, Commonwealth Games, Olympics or Women's Rugby World Cup finals

Notes: Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG. The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Comments? --Bob (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but as it will still be undera professional sports heading, and Bluethird's suggested split is unlikely to be implemented due to the huge duplication issues it will cause, the application to both am and prof should be explicitly stated. Is there a relevant article/section to link to about the forced amateur requirements historically? The-Pope (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The best article I have seen on the matter is History of rugby union.

In response to The-Pope, I have adjusted the Notes section and point 4. as follows with adjustments in bold italics (the adjustment is in italics which will be removed later).

4. played in, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,

Notes: The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. Players who do not meet the above parameters must also pass WP:GNG. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Do these changes nulify any potential problems? --Bob (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just one question about the tier-one and tier two nations. Before the Second World War, the rugby scene was much smaller and there really was only two tiers, with the four/five nations, Aus, NZ and SA in the first and everybody else in the second (Germany, Italy, Spain). How does that tie in? Secondly, the new rule would make virtually all players in, for exapmle, Category:Germany international rugby union players, Category:Belgian rugby union players or Category:Serbian rugby union players non-notable and therefore ready for deletion while before the fact that they all played at least one test match caused them to pass. Personally, I would find this a bit upsetting. Calistemon (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Relating to tier one, two and three, that it why I included the (now). All players that represented these countries deemed notable regardless of when the match occurred re professional and amateur periods. Regarding the players that represent third tier nations who do not play professionally, yes, they probably will be deleted as they would be deemed non-notable, but not all players in those categories would fail the criteria above (66% of the Belgians would remain for example). I have personally contributed to a number of the articles (and categories) that would be deleted as I was unaware that the criteria for rugby union players is listed under Professional sports persons at Wikipedia:ATHLETE. Thus, only players playing professionally for their national team are currently considered notable as written. No mention of amateur status side is made. The nutshell statement at the top of WP:ATHLETE is An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The players for Serbia, Germany and the like are not playing at the highest level and have not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Bob (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Women's Rugby World Cup finals should be added to point 5. AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and done. --Bob (talk) 02:18, 21 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)

Agreed. Will delete offending statement. --Bob (talk) 02:18, 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:

3 Notability guidelines on sports persons

3.1 Generally acceptable standards

3.2 Individual sports

4 Notability guidelines on games and organisations

BlueThird (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To establish a waterproof guidline is a great idea but I'm just not comfortable with the empathis on professionalism, especially in a sport like union where amateurism was and, in a lot of places still is held in high esteem. With the new guidline, a third divison football (soocer) player in Germany, England or Italy with one league appearance would be deemed notable because the league is fully professional while a Serbian international like Milan Rastovac with 72 caps for his country, many of those no doubt achieved in World Cup qualifiers and ENC matches is non-notable because he plays the game for the love of it rather then the money. Maybe its only me that feels so but do we have our values quite right there? Calistemon (talk) 10:20, 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)

The Tier issue should not be a problem, as if a nation is demoted to tier 3, those players, etc who were involved during the tier 2 period would still be notable, they would not become not notable all of a sudden. Otherwise all defunct teams would be not notable; it is the period of time when they were notable we should concentrate on not 'where are they today'. Also there was rugby 'union' before 1871, it was just the first national union and international matches that began on that date. WikiProject: Rugby union is interested in all players, officials and clubs going back to when it was just 'football' and there were no official codes, like association, rugby or league. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Would just like to add my 2c to this, firstly in points 1 & 2 can "played in" be changed to "played for" as it reads better and remove IRB Sevens World Series in point 5 as I don't think just playing in that is any indication in and of it's self the player would have recived enough coverage to pass WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it should probably not use (now) as that implies 'where are they today'. The Woman's rugby world cup might need tweaking too. It needs to be included as its the top women's competition, but I am not sure how many of the lower teams would have notable enough players. AIRcorn (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten:

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has:

1. played for, coached or administered one of the first or second tier test nations at any time^{(see Note 1)} or a third tier test nation during an appearance at the men's rugby world cup^{(see Note 2)} or,
2. refereed a first or second tier nation test match since 1871 or match at the men's rugby world cup finals or,
3. played for, coached or administered a team, or refereed in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
4. played for, coached, administered a team or refereed at the Rugby World Cup Sevens, Commonwealth Games, Olympics or the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.^{(see Note 3)}

Note 1: Tier 1 and 2 nations for men are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Japan, Italy, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales. Women do not have tiered nations.

Note 2: Tier 3 nations that have played at the World cup are: Georgia (2003, 2007, 2011), Ivory Coast (1995), Namibia (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011), Portugal (2007), Spain (1999), Russia (2011), Uruguay (1999 and 2003), and Zimbabwe (1987 and 1991)

Note 3: Nations that have played at the Women's World cup at the semi-final level are: Australia, Canada, England, France, New Zealand, United States, and Wales,

Note 4: The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status.

Note 5: A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Again, comments? --Bob (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine, and thanks Mtking (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me GainLine ♠ _♥ 10:27, 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)

Could it be simplified to three points (sorry if I am missing something, but I can't see the value of not combining point 2 with point 1). The first three notes are fine, but I would write out the last two similar to how you had them above. AIRcorn (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached, refereed or administered:

1. a first or second tier test nation at any time^{(see Note 1)} or a third tier test nation during an appearance at the men's rugby world cup^{(see Note 2)} or,
2. a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
3. a team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, Commonwealth Games, Olympics or at least the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.^{(see Note 3)}

Note 1: Tier 1 and 2 nations for men are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Japan, Italy, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales. Women do not have tiered nations.

Note 2: Tier 3 nations that have played at the World cup are: Georgia (2003, 2007, 2011), Ivory Coast (1995), Namibia (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011), Portugal (2007), Spain (1999), Russia (2011), Uruguay (1999 and 2003), and Zimbabwe (1987 and 1991)

Note 3: Nations that have played at the Women's World cup at the semi-final level are: Australia (2010), Canada (1998, 2002, 2006), England (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), France (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010), New Zealand (1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), United States (1991, 1994, 1998), and Wales (1994).

The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Question : Re Women's World cup, should the years be listed for the countries : Australia (2010), Canada (1998, 2002, 2006), England (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), France (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010), New Zealand (1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), United States (1991, 1994, 1998), and Wales (1994)  ? Mtking (talk) 08:22, 29 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)

semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup link should probably go there too. And I would list the English appearances rather than just saying any. AIRcorn (talk) 05:25, 1 July 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)

Notability of Club Sides

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)

Pinner and Grammarians Rugby Football Club is an English team playing in the Herts/Middlesex 2 division. They have a long history and are the lowest league club to provide a President to the RFU. I think it's a worthwhile article. Please contribute. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Should a rough guideline be established similar to the biographical one? Maybe competitions could be included as well? WP:Football has some simple ones. AIRcorn (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea for both competitions and clubs. --Bob247 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It would help prevent the continual issue of attempts to delete rugby articles. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:11, 5 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)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that football notability guidelines should be used to define notability for rugby union. Aircorn just said that WP:FOOTY has some simple guidelines that could be adapted for use with rugby union. – PeeJay 11:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

They were the only ones I found when scanning the other sports Wikiprojects. I agree that any that are developed here would have to include amateur clubs in some way. AIRcorn (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to do, Aircorn, I meant no offence by my comment about football. I just get a bit p-d off with football up here, its fans behave as if it's the only sport in existence. And our media's the same, especially the tabloids. If anything gets by the Old Firm, then football division 50 gets more coverage than our division one in rugby! Football (if we should call it that) gets so much coverage and so much money pumped into it, compared to rugby. Minor FCs stay on wikipedia, while significant RFCs are getting AFDs all the time...--MacRusgail (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria as I see them:

• Age - Anything founded before WWI is significant, especially if it's still around, e.g. Wimbledon RFC, Montevideo Cricket Club (it may be in Uruguay, but it's one of the oldest in the world)
• Professionalism - Prof/Semi-Prof clubs automatically qualify, no question. Pre-professonalism, dominant clubs deserve a mention.
• Significant players - Aspatria RFC plays in a low league but has plenty of notable players. Cefneithin RFC would also qualify on these grounds.
• Historical significance - Mohicans Football Club disbanded quickly but helped set up the RFU. Likewise, Merchistonians qualifies in Scotland.
• Significant administrators - One or two clubs have provided national RU presidents etc, despite not providing players, e.g. Pinner and Grammerians RFC

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)

I was tinkering with using a ranking system based on the Tier's (or High Performance Unions).

• Club that has played in the top national competition of any country.
• Club that has played in a national competition of a "High Performance Union" (for the USA this would have to include territorial competitions).
• Club that has played in a provincial competition within a Tier 1 country (might need better wording and could be too broad).

It is less subjective, but may miss a few historical clubs - although they should hopefully pass GNG anyway. I would think this should cover most clubs that have produced significant players and administrators. AIRcorn (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally agree, but I would include certain clubs in Tier 2 as well. There are some fairly notable sides in the USA, particularly the university sides, and notable regional sides in Canada. Some of these have played major international sides. I think some Clubs outside 1 & 2 might be harder... but I believe there are some notable ones in Hong Kong, Germany, Holland etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. This is all without going into individual notability.

Yeah, no matter what we come up with there are going to be a few which fall of either end. AIRcorn (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Amalgamating the suggestions above I have worded the following:

A rugby union club is deemed notable if it has

1. played in the top national competition of any nation,
2. played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union,
3. been a founding member of a national rugby union/federation
4. provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union.

Comments? --Bob247 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would work. Should point two be reworded slightly? Played in an International Rugby Board recognized domestic or international competition organized by a High Performance Union. AIRcorn (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I worded it such as some teams played in defunct leagues in these nations that existed before the union became affiliated with the IRB. For instance, France only became affiliated in 1978, Italy in 1987, Australia and NZ in 1949 and the Pacific Islanders (Fiji, Tonga and Samoa) and USA and Canada in 1987-88. Teams and leagues predated this period.

On another note, what about university sides? For instance, in the USA they are arguably more prominent/notable than the club sides. --Bob247 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree, and the USA university sides need much better coverage than they've got.

I would consider the following notable, but not for the usual reasons: Kyadondo Rugby Club (Uganda), Montevideo Cricket Club (Uruguay), Hong Kong Football Club, DSV 78 Hannover (Germany) etc. There are also some interesting clubs that were started in the Soviet Union, but information is hard to come by on that. (I should know, I researched it for over a year).-MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. AIRcorn (talk) 09:14, 18 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)

For the USA university teams what about clubs that participate in the College Premier Division? A historical guideline (formed before 1900) or something similar could also potentially be included. AIRcorn (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good guide, but I'm still scratching my head over the apparent absence of Ivy League teams. As I understand it the two historical strongholds of rugby in the USA are in the Ivy League, and in California. Utah and Hawaii have also developed a strong rugby tradition, mainly due to Polynesian immigration (Utah, because Mormonism is strong in some of the Pacific Island nations, such as Tonga and Samoa. Some of them get scholarships to BYU etc) I think Hawaii is organised separately from the Continental US, so there are issues there too.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:39, 18 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)

Club notability revisited

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TSB Ravensburg

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)

Notability: competitions

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

1. it is the top national club league competition of any nation,
2. it is the top national club cup competition of any nation, or
3. the competing clubs are wholly or mostly members of the top national club league competition

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)

Noting that there appear to be no objections, I shall add this as a notability guideline. Mooretwin (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2015 (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)

Articles for deletion/Tribute Somerset 3 South

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)

Merge proposed

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Merge redundant RU notability pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)