Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia Maccabiah rugby union team

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. We seem to be spending a lot of time comparing the Maccibah Gamse and the Olympics, but, at the end of the day, the consensus is that these articles here are not notable. Courcelles 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Maccabiah rugby union team

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons listed below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete All teams are non-notable. Fails

WP:GNG Bob247 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions.

Delete all after merging in the team squads (as collapsible boxes) into the Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games. A related deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – team squads. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you're confused about this, since these are articles about the teams who have been competing in the Maccabiah since the early 1980s, rather than just the 2009 squads.

The only mergable information is for 2009, the rest of the years are all empty. If someone wants to add the earlier team squads they can also be added to the appropriate Rugby union at the ???? Maccabiah Games article. They are currently all stubs and should be fleshed out first before starting on content forks. AIRcorn (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also why are we using search engines to find sources? Some of us actually use libraries! You'll find more information about this in library books than on Google, which doesn't pass muster as an academic tool.-MacRusgail (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. This should be listed on the Israel, RU and Jewish wikiprojects.[reply]

Care to provide any significant coverage that you found in a library? Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already have added references on various articles related to Jewish rugby and rugby players from Encyclopedia Judaica etc. And it takes time. (I have to wait at least two/three hours for the thing to be delivered.) I just don't think it's appropriate to be using a commercial search engine as an academic resource. This is what makes Wikipedia a standing joke in many circles, and makes us susceptible to

WP:LINKROT. But if you're talking on a weblink basis, the UK article has a number of refs on it of varying quality. The US article is even more linked (or was, maybe dead links are in there).--MacRusgail (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. It also doesn't help that my Hebrew is minimal, and I don't have any Jewish background.[reply

]

Keep - The
WP:RU/N is undergoing discussion over on WP:RU, and I believe this is premature.[reply
]
Which fairly notable rugby union players have played at the Maccabiah Games? Jenks24 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Liffchak and Shawn Lipman to name two.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are two of the more notable players to compete in rugby at the Maccabiah Games, then I think that speaks for itself – both players only scrape past
WP:NSPORTS. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Honestly, given the amount of trouble the RU project has had, because the majority of international rugby union still remains amateur, and has been in the recent past... I find it rich that the deletionists on here have made little effort to find out pretty much anything about the Maccabiah and the nature of it.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per MacRusgail. Same as our approach w/Olympic teams and the like.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously comparing the Maccabiah Games with the Olympics? Jenks24 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The Maccabiah is not the Olympics, but it is pretty big. The 2005 games had 7,000 competitors from around fifty countries. I do not wish club rugby teams to be deleted, but the national Maccabiah rugby teams are as notable as some of them, and are grouped together in an international tournament.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but the vast majority of those 7000 competitors are not (and will never be) notable. Just because a competition is big, does not mean every team that has competed at said competition needs an article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do all the teams of the Gay Games warrant an article? 9,475 athletes from 70 countries participated at the Gay Games in 2010. --Bob247 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is one of the largest and most heavily covered by RSs amateur international sporting events in the world. We cover teams at the Olympics. And we cover Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics. For the same reasons. Agree w/Mac here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Who was asking the Gay Games to be deleted? Not me! The Maccabiah is a pretty big international event, certainly as important as some leagues in rugby, certainly more important than the
        Women's Lacrosse World Cup--MacRusgail (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        You are comparing apples with oranges. The discussion is not about the Maccabiah Games, or Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games, but on the individual teams competing at the events. Thus a more apt comparison would be the Canada national wheelchair curling team, of which there is no article. --Bob247 (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Maccabiah is an internationally recognized sporting event by the IOC and other governing bodies. Therefore, it remains notable to wikipedia. -NYC2TLV (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody is trying to delete the Maccabiah games, or even the Rugby union at the year Maccabiah Games articles. Just the squad lists, which contain no or very little information. The members of the squads themselves need not be deleted either, just merged into their relevant article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have just looked at the IOC list of recognosed organisations and I couldn't help but notice that the Maccabi World Union or Federation is not listed. However, I should point out that the Maccabiah Games is not listed for deletion. --Bob247 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All because this is obviously a very thorough attempt to make this vast topic encyclopedic and these are excellent Wikipedia {{
WP:NOTPAPER and the importance of the modern Maccabiah Games for secular Jews is no less than the modern Olympic Games. Certainly no less important than things like Category:Soccer clubs in Adelaide etc etc etc and hundreds more like that. IZAK (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- How is soccer clubs in Adelaide at all relevant to this discussion? See
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Maccabiah Games is not listed for deletion. --Bob247 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Follow the logic please. Jenks: The point is that WP has room for even relatively "minor" teams as long as they are part of a greater whole. Bob: The Maccabiah Games are made up of the teams that compete to get into it and participate in it. The whole cannot exist without the parts. IZAK (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, many articles on Wikipedia exist without the parts. Take a look at
  The Apprentice (U.S. season 1). How many parts or candidates have individual articles and how many had them before they were deleted for lack of notability? --Bob247 (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Indeed, they "exist", but anyone may add more "parts" to enlarge a general subject. IZAK (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  and they will be subject to deletion, like many of the candidates in The Apprentice. --Bob247 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Whatever. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can find no significant coverage, which is what's required to pass the
WP:RU/N either. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Teams competing in major international events. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Keepers have neither demonstrated nor provided references that show that the teams listed above pass the
general notability guidelines. If they are notable, please provide references that demonstrate their notability. These don't have to be internet based. If you have a book or similar that deomstrates notability, please provide said reference to the book. A similar situation exists for teams of the Gay Games, for which we do not have articles. Moreover, apart from the Israeli side (which is not listed above), none are members of their respective national unions. Wikipedia is not a democracy, if you feel that the teams are notable, please provide references that demonstrate that they are. --Bob247 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

When we have a major, highly notable (by RS coverage) international sporting event (as is the case with the Olympics), we don't have to have dozens of articles about each sport in the sporting event--we automatically cover all the events as notable. Such is the case here. But if anyone wants to read the hundreds/thousands of articles/books on rugby at the Maccabiah, they can read the following: here, here (ignoring the wiki entries), and here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, match reports/results in the local press are not considered the type of significant coverage required to satisfy the general notability guidelines, which most of the 198 articles cited in the first link are. --Bob247 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread coverage (local press or not -- and here we have much more than local press) is sufficient. The coverage here -- please, read the books as well -- is far more than "passing mention", or "fewer than multiple RSs". Concentrate on the best sources -- we have far more than what is needed to reflect the multiple sources needed for notability. And far more than we have for Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics (as you know, it is permissible to look at "other stuff" when that is not the solitary argument in a deletion discussion).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are trying to blind the argument by comparing apples with oranges. The discussion is not about the Maccabiah Games, or Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games, but on the individual teams competing at the events. Thus a more apt comparison would be the Canadian national wheelchair curling team, of which there is no article. The claim by Epeefleche of significant coverage being found via google is a clear case of misrepresentation, so can't be accepted as evidence of such coverage. If the evidence does exist, please add it to the relevant article to improve it and demonstrate notability. --Bob247 (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. As DGG pointed out above (and Mac, and NYC, and Izak make good points as well), they are notable because they are teams participating in a major international sporting event. That is highly relevant -- that is why we, for example, deem as notable Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics. We don't say .... oh, that's not notable, and please don't mention that it is an event in the Paralympics and that that is a major international sporting event. The fact that it is part of such a major notable event is what makes it notable. And anyone who looks at the refs will see that my citation to widespread coverage is accurate -- they don't have to accept my words, they can simply look at the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG for each of the articles listed above. That is, that address the subject directly in detail, from independent reliable sources that are independent of the the subject? No data dumps please. Actual indepth articles. Notability needs to be demonstrated, it is not inherent. Please list below: --Bob247 (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Not an appropriate example. I have relatives who are involved in wheelchair curling! I don't know what all that quasi-homophobic nonsense about the Gay Games was about either.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Games are a multisport event that has national teams in sports not affiliated with the national federations. Therefore it is a relevant example. --Bob247 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you want the Gay Games done away with?! I've already provided an IRB link. NB - are the Barbarians affiliated to any national union? Because even if they are, A handful of Barbarians have been from outside the RWC teams, including at least one Swede (Karl Tapper) and some Germans.-MacRusgail (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want the Gay Games done away with! I never suggested such a thing. What I did suggest though, was that teams involved in an event not dissimilar to the Maccabiah may be subject to deletion as well, as they too, will fail

WP:GNG as they have had books and chapters in books and television specials written about them and have received widespread press attention. The teams listed above have not. --Bob247 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Even amongst the links, there are connections to newspapers and websites based in NZ, Australia, England and Ireland (the IRB itself). I'd say that's fairly widespread. In actual fact, there have been a number of books on Jewish athletes (partly to counter certain anti-Semitic stereotypes).--MacRusgail (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche - Books LLC gets its information from Wikipedia, as do all the others in your google book search. Instead of links to irrelevant search results can you just provide links to newspaper articles or other secondary source that discusses any of the team squads above. AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this bloody obsession with Google on Wikipedia?! It's a search engine, not an academic research tool. I would be ripped to shreds if I wrote a dissertation based on Google search! Anyway, the Australian article had links to an Australian Jewish network, and a non-Jewish NZ website, both of which have disappeared due to

WP:LINKROT (Quote - "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."), which shows precisely why we shouldn't rely heavily on weblinks for referencing.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"If they are notable, please provide references that demonstrate their notability." - As I have already pointed out, while it is not apt to compare these teams to high level international XVs, they are certainly competing at as high a level as many of the club sides we have articles about. (And which should be kept IMHO) The likes of

Zachary Test have appeared in Maccabiah rugby teams, both of whom have played in non-Maccabiah rugby (one at the 1991 RWC and the other in international VIIs.)--MacRusgail (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Since you guys are fascinated by online stuff, the IRB main website includes [http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/regional/newsid=2032816.html?cid=rssfeed&att= Australia win Maccabiah Rugby Gold (IRB.COM) Wednesday 22 July 2009] and this - [http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/regional/newsid=2032679.html Rugby ready to feature at Maccabiah Games (IRB.COM) Saturday 11 July 2009]. Like I say, I don't trust weblinks, as they tend to disappear after a couple of years.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links satisfy

WP:GNG for any of the teams listed above. They may be used to show notability of Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games though. --Bob247 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, I think guys at Wikipedia make up the rules as they go along. (And there is some good evidence that they do.) What precisely do you want? DNA samples from all the players, and evidence that they've played in at least ten games?! The IRB is the international governing body of rugby union, so how much better than that can you do? As I keep on saying, these teams are at least as notable as some club sides. Your argument based on general notability is completely subjective.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete All Whew! What a mess of articles with unnotable team members. Wikipedia is not an advertising space to acquire notability. One article on Maccabiah is sufficient--AssegaiAli (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabiah what? Maccabiah rugby, or the entire Maccabiah?!--MacRusgail (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything referenced to a Rugby union at the Maccabiah games or similar, and Delete the rest. These are not notable players and the Maccabiah games is not a particularly notable rugby tournament. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You must have really done your research on this topic if you can't even find the main article... --MacRusgail (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cruel call to make when they only missed it by not capitalising a letter. -- saberwyn 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. No evidence has been provided that the make-up of these teams are notable and series of articles on Rugby union at each Maccabiah Games seems to be a more appropriate location for any details. Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all on reviewing the articles, only TWO players (
Mtking ^(edits) 05:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as per AIRcorn...--Stemoc (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I checked some of them and they reutned no news coverage at all, therefore not notable
talk) 00:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

in all these comments, it seems to be ignored that playing in an international tournament would in fact make every one of the players listed notable under current guidelines, if the participation were verified. That the articles are not presently there is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only two players have met

International Rugby Board. --Bob247 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 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.