Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Schools Barbarians

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. Secret ^account 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Schools Barbarians

This article was previously speedy deleted under criteria CSD#A7 twice, then discussed at DELREV. I closed the DELREV as Overturn and relist, so here we are. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extremely obscure. It's fun to put your friends into Wikipedia. but it's not encyclopediac. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sarcastic ill informed comments such as that made by Wtshymanski don't assist matters. This is an article written about a very significant new development in UK rugby with very significant UK rugby playing schools participating and actively endorsing. Paste (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does seem to be an article about an at least potentially significant development in grass roots rugby. Admittedly the author has written a little too personally, - "... we were very fortunate ...." and "... we have recently found out ...", for instance, and there is a little too much peacock language. But those aren't reasons for deleting, they're reasons for improving. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike the US, schools sports are rarely notable in the UK and there is nothing notable about this team. Significantly, the team excludes the best players from the schools - I quote "The ten schools involved nominated their best players not currently involved in the Academy or representative structure". Media coverage does not meet WP:N. An omnibus article Schools rugby union in the United Kingdom would be a better way to go. BlueValour (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still fail to see an assertion of notability, much less proof of same. Although some member schools involved at highly notable, that does not mean this joint team is. Every club at Eton does not need its own article here. Xoloz (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/stubify. The lead section is essentially a synthesised copyvio of two of the sources provided, [1] and [2], and the rest arguably goes into far too much detail to be worth keeping. This team might possibly be notable simply based on the fame of the schools involved (including Eton, Harrow and Rugby school itself), but if it is kept, it should be reduced to a stub to solve the problems I mention. Terraxos (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that there are copyright violations, then they should be fixed, obviously. But the notability is not just to do with the schools involved, it's also to do with the connection to the Barbarians. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "synthesised copyvio". If the article can be fixed, then it should be fixed. If it can't, then it should be deleted. But the Barbarian's connection makes it notable I believe. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support by the Barbarians is nice but not notable; notability is not inherited and all the top rugby union clubs sponsor youth sides. None of the 10 schools listed have any current rugby union notability (Rugby School has a toehold on rugby history but that is a different matter). None of the schools feature in current the national knock-out competition - here nor on the schools rugby site as having won anything notable - here. Nor have any of the schools, as far as I can see, had representatives in the recent England u-18 teams. Interestingly Millfield, which does have some ruby notability, is not part of the consortium. BlueValour (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2008 (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.