Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 mid-year rugby test series

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 keep. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 mid-year rugby test series

2013 mid-year rugby test series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such thing as "2013 mid-year rugby test series" (or "summer tours") covered by reliable sources. This is a made-up subject which is an arbitrary list of matches connected by being played around the same time. "Week 1" etc is a made-up timeline with no basis in reliable sources. hippo43 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This article is about a series of rugby union test matches taking place in the middle of the year 2013. That title is absolutly apt.
The matches are organised as tours, are widely understood as such and have been from the very earliest days [1]. Reliable sources, try ESPN, BBC, RTE, The Scotsman, The Telegraph. Enough. Hamish59 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYou are right, the title is apt for the subject matter in the article. But that is not the objection to the article. I could start an article called Series of grey buildings on the north side of my street - about a series of buildings which are grey etc. It still wouldn't be a real series covered by reliable sources, and it wouldn't be notable enough for a wikipedia article.
Of course tours exist, that is not in question. But where are the sources that cover this supposed series? The "2013 mid-year rugby test series" does not exist, as far as I can tell from reliable sources. Is it mentioned in any of these sources you gave? It appears to be an entirely artificial construct. --hippo43 (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so is your problem with the word "series"? If so, rename the article to "2013 mid-year rugby tests" or some such. Hamish59 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this one goes / is renamed, then so should these:
Mid-year rugby union test series
2004 mid-year rugby test series
2005 mid-year rugby test series
2006 mid-year rugby test series
2007 mid-year rugby test series
2008 mid-year rugby test series
2009 mid-year rugby test series
2010 mid-year rugby test series
2011 mid-year rugby test series
2012 mid-year rugby test series
I take it that 2012 end-of-year rugby union tests and its ilk are acceptable? Despite opening with "The 2012 end of year rugby tests, ..., is a series of international rugby union matches" Hamish59 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My objection is that the subject is made up. There is no reason to create an artificial group of matches when reliable sources do not treat them as such, especially when individual tours already have their own articles. This article (and those for other years) is essentially a list of games that take place in a certain arbitrary time frame in any number of different places. The grounds for inclusion are vague at best - is this a series of test matches, or a bunch of national teams' tours lumped together? Are non-test games to be included? Barbarians games? It's a mess, which serves no purpose other than some editors' desire to put lots of things in boxes and lists.
Can you provide any good sources that treat these games as a connected group?
  • Reply These do not refer to these matches as part of a series, or as part of the same event. Combining them into one article is spurious. Why only tests over these few weeks? Why not all tests in 2013, for example? Where are the sources which establish this group of matches as notable? --hippo43 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, I begin to see what you are driving at now. You orignal rationale was not at all clear. I take it that these have to go too:
End-of-year rugby union tests
2002 end-of-year rugby union tests
2004 end-of-year rugby union tests
2005 end-of-year rugby union tests
2006 end-of-year rugby union tests
2007 end-of-year rugby union tests
2008 end-of-year rugby union tests
2009 end-of-year rugby union tests
2010 end-of-year rugby union tests
2011 end-of-year rugby union tests
2011 end-of-year women's rugby union tests
2012 end-of-year rugby union tests
2012 end-of-year women's rugby union tests
2013 end-of-year rugby union tests

Hamish59 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Apologies if my original statement wasn't very clear. I agree, these other articles are similarly flawed. If you get started on deleting them I will give you all the support I can. --hippo43 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple way out of this. Just rename the articles Mid year rugby union tests. It's not rocket science. You said ESPN is reliable, however, ESPN cover the Barbarian match and the Blues v France match. Grow up. Rugby.change (talk) With regards to the 'Week 1,2,3,etc' sections, this is not creating a timeline, its a matter of helping readers navigate through the article easier. Rugby.change (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Irrespective of what words you prefer, where are the sources which establish that these matches are notable as a group? Week 1/2/3 etc is a spurious way of labelling these games and has no basis in any sources. Who says which week is week 1? --hippo43 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read. Labelling weeks as week 1,2,3,etc are not saying they are the first week of something, that are to navigate through the page easier to if the weeks were not there. Anyway, the week sections are used in many rugby articles. What do you plan to do, delete all Rugby Article fixtures on Wikipedia. Rugby.change (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, can you prove they are not week labeled as week 1,etc. Define reliable, what you see as reliable is probably different to what I see as reliable. Rugby.change (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. After a bit of thought I'm with Hippo on this one. The article is in fact "collection of rugby union matches which happen to be played during the middle months of 2013". It's not a discrete tournament like the 6N or Super Rugby, it's just a bunch of games. If the casual reader wants to find out the result of (say) one of the Argentina v England tests, he/she can turn to 2013 England rugby union tour of Argentina, which is a rational article on a single tour, or History of rugby union matches between Argentina and England. Is anyone actually going to come looking for an article on mid-year "tests", some of which are tests and some of which aren't? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we have civil debate please - "grow up" and "can you read?" don't belong in an adult discussion. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we to decide weather or not people read the article more than the tour articles. Not all the tours have it's own personal article I.E Ireland. The tour articles is something that is quite recent. It's only since the new global tour system introduced last year by the IRB that tour articles has been created. On top of that, where would you find the Georgia v Argentina test, what you going to do, create an article for one single test. The Mid-Year rugby union test pages are to list the tests, with the tour articles including further information on the tour should readers feel like reading them. If you read this, [2], the IRB states them as the June Internationals (second link down), which is as good as calling the articles as mid-year rugby union tests. Rugby.change (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said the Summer Tours are made up. [3] proof that they are not! Flamincho (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tour articles have been around for years - people were working on tour articles as far back as 2008. My point about readers is this; we get wrapped up here in what we do, creating & editing articles that interest us - but it's supposed to be a source of information. Someone might want, in a few years time maybe, to find out about matches between Argentina and England, or a tour which a team made. Would someone want to find about all the various games played in the summer of 2013? I don't know, and nor does anyone else, but my opinion is that they probably won't. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the Mid-year rugby union tests should be the main page, with the individual tours coming off that with more detail. Sort of like the Six Nations. The Six Nations Championship is the main page, coming off that is the yearly tournament, which includes all the details about that year. The main article doesn't include all the details (2013 mid-year rugby union tests) but the 2013 Six Nations Championship dose include all the details in that year (or in this case the tour (2013 France rugby union tour of New Zealand)) Rugby.change (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are lots of references to "mid year tests" and "summer internationals."

  • A whole section for it on Setanta
  • Mentioned by the CEO of Rugby Canada: "With Canada competing in the world's top rugby events, including the men's and women's Rugby World Cups, Pan-American Games and summer internationals..."
  • From the SANZAR website, "A further six players will be added to the group once Super Rugby breaks for the mid-year Test window on June 10." Why would SuperRugby break if there wasn't such a thing as the mid-year tests?
  • Bleacher Report Headline, "IRB Rugby 2013 Summer Tests"
  • Booking tours for the summer tests
  • From the Guardian, "The Ireland game, at BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston on 8 June (and thus within the International Rugby Board's summer international window, when clubs must release players if countries call for them), follows a fixture against Italy last year that attracted a national-record 17,214 spectators."

There are many references to the mid-year and end-of-year (or Summer and Fall) tests. They happen every year, and have happened for quite some time now. I'm not sure how anyone can say that there's "no such thing" as the Summer Tours. Grande (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case the above is not enough, here's a bunch from the official IRB website. If the IRB recognises the mid-year and end-of-year tests, we should as well.
What more do you want? Grande (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See even the Southern Hemisphere's Sanzar titles the tests as the Mid-year tests. Although what I'm concerned about, is you worry over what the article is called. It seems to me, you disagree with the articles name, and that problem was already sorted, changing the articles from mid-year rugby test series to mid-year rugby union tests. Rugby.change (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep albeit in vastly diminished form. This page should simply be a list of results with a short prose section to tie it all together. I view this page (and all the others like it) as being akin to the International cricket in 2013 article, and the tour articles as similar to the New Zealand cricket team in England in 2013 article. A lot of notable rugby matches are happening this summer, including a few one-off matches that should not have their own individual articles, but there should at least be an article to cover all of them in summary style. I would just say that we should not add the line-ups, touch judges and the rest like we do on individual tour articles. – PeeJay 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for article. I don't have a strong opinion about the full content, or as to the title, but each annual article on mid-year and end-of-year Tests reflects a long-established IRB practice of reserving June and November for Test matches. I won't even try to add to the rationale for keeping it, since it's been more than eloquently stated by any number of other posters. — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't argued that these tests don't happen, that the IRB doesn't schedule a release period for them, or that countries don't tour during the summer months - of course they do. There are obviously sources which mention summer tests or mid year test or whatever. However, are there sources which establish notability? The fact that something exists and can be listed doesn't mean we should create an article listing it, and nor does the fact that a test match happened and we're not quite sure where to put it.
To my reading of the guidelines, these articles do not meet either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for sports events.
Are there, for example, good quality sources which discuss all the games in the summer of 2008 as a whole, which reflect on their significance within the global game or do anything other than list results? I've tried to find them and can't. That 2008 article covers games from June through to September, spread across four continents. Even leaving aside Belgium vs the Barbarians, there is just no significant connection, for example, between the Ireland-Barbarians game and the South Africa-Argentina game. Can anyone find any sources which discuss (beyond simply listing details) the links between these types of games? --hippo43 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the reason there are no games listed after July to September is because the International window for the mid-year tests are from June to July. August in the Southern hemisphere is the Rugby Championship and in the Northern Hemisphere is training ahead of the club tournaments. Other tournaments are also in place for August. Rugby.change (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know why there are no later games listed, and was not expressing confusion over it. The point is, the time frame is arbitrary. Although the IRB designates three weekends in June for international games, these articles include different periods. The fact that games in that article are listed from June to September shows how vague the criteria for inclusion have been.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the policy re notability? Do you think the subject meets the notability guidelines or not, and can you explain why? --hippo43 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are no websites that talk specifically about 2013 in association football either, and yet we still have a series of articles like that going back almost 150 years. We have this article because it is a convenient summary of the individual countries' summer tour articles. – PeeJay 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See WP:WAX. Convenient for who? People looking for info on games played between certain dates, all over the world? Presumably these people are here looking for it because they can't find any real coverage of this 'subject' in good quality reliable sources?
Does it meet the notability guidelines and why? --hippo43 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I think we should just leave it as it is. The mid-year articles has all the fixtures announced by the individual unions and the IRB with tour articles coming off that with a more thorough overview off the tour I.E touring squads. For the non-test matches included it's briefly shown with no line-ups. What actually seems to be the problem with the article. Should other matches take place in the June/July international window then they would be on there. Basically if Tier 3 team announces a fixture, then it will be on there. As for 2013, tier 3 team is competing. Rugby.change (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article is that it doesn't appear to be a notable enough subject for an article based on the general and specific notability guidelines - WP:N and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Have you read them and what do you think? --hippo43 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We realistically can't tell if the article is notable enough. We could say this about all the articles on Wikipedia. We just have assume it's notable enough. Just because there's few editors editing the article doesn't mean we are the only people reading the article. Rugby.change (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, the Mid-year articles cover Internatinal friendlies in the June/July IRB international window. Matches included on the article are matches that are officially announced by the individual rugby unions and or the press release of IRB referees in May. All matches in the document [4] will be covered on the article. We can't just make up fixtures. Rugby.change (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. As editors, we have to make decisions based on whether articles meet the notability criteria. Based on your reading of the criteria, does this topic meet them? Has it received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? --hippo43 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article dose meet the notability criteria and yes it has reliable sources. ESPN is a reliable source and on top of that, there are references to the individual unions. Rugby.change (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me towards the significant coverage - prose, rather than just stats - these games receives as a group? --hippo43 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a terrible reason to keep it. Wikipedia can't be used as a source for the articles you are updating, per WP:WPNOTRS. --hippo43 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that it's far more easier for readers to see the fixtures on a single article. Remember there are single tests and there's no point creating an article for a single test. Remember the 2013 Mid Year rugby union tests is the main article with all the tests. The individual tours include far more detail I.E touring squads and history between the touring and home nation. Rugby.change (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although I will maintain that this article should be summary style only, as I said above, i.e. nothing other than the summary table at the top, the {{rugbybox}} templates and the quadrangular tournament table. – PeeJay 17:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by summury the tours are mentioned not explained. The individual fixtures are a copy of the tours, meaning line-ups should be included. The linked tournaments will explain the tour in more detail and will include the squads for future reference. Rugby.change (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Completely agree Rugby.change. The mid-year tests article gathers all tests in a single article. It saves readers from looking for individual tour articles, and if solo test happens (Argentina v Georgia) it covers that - No point creating an article for one test. The text at the far top of the article briefly mentions the tours, with the overview section linking readers to the tours, where they find a much more detailed article on the tour. There is apsolutly nothing wrong with the current article, it has plenty of refrences to back everything up and keeps readers up to date with the latest tests without flipping between pages looking at different tours. It seems to me that hippo43 is expressing his/her own opinion. Flamincho (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is absolutely no point in including the line-ups on both pages. It's the same as what we do for the FIFA World Cup articles; line-ups are included on the pages for each round but not on the overall tournament page. It's pointless. – PeeJay 17:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:PeeJay2K3. Let's remove the line ups. Keep it on the tour pages and, for the single tests, let's just ignore it. We probably don't need that info. Grande (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flamincho, Of course I am expressing my opinion - everyone here is. However, I have expressed my opinion with regard to the notability guidelines, while nobody who takes the opposite view has. Can you point me towards significant prose coverage of summer/mid-year tests as a whole in independent, reliable sources, or is your argument just that you like the article as it is? --hippo43 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on article title As you maybe aware, during each year as of 2012, there are two release windows for player. The first is June for the June International window (Officially called mid-year rugby union tests), the other is for November for the November International window. (Officially called End-of year rugby union tests). As for the June tests, I renamed the articles form mid-year rugby test series to mid-year rugby union tests as not every year will include a series (2011 and 2015).
Match coverage I'll admit, I get all the match coverage from ESPN as I personally see them as a very reliable source like many other people on here. They are up to date with new fixture announcements and has the fixtures listed well in advance. As of 13 June 2013, they have fixtures up to the end of the 2015 Rugby World Cup. But an official list can be sourced by the referee press release earlier in the year ,Referee press release, and it can be sourced by the fixtures/result column on the IRB IRB Fixtures and results. Grande has further references further up or have you just ignored them?
Further comments as you mentioned that officially there is no Week 1, Week 2, Week 3 during the June international window. This was only put in place so that readers can navigate through the article easier than if they weren't there. In my opinion the weeks sectioned can indicate the weeks in the window. June 1-7 Week 1, June 8-14 Week 2 and so on.
Away from that, to answer your final question. Yes I do like the article as it is, it informs people on all the fixtures all in one place a direct copy of the tour websites. People like PeeJay and Rugby.change have been editing the article for mounts, and I'd like to thank them for their efforst, and as I've said before, the tour articles are a lot more detailed to the opening text at the top of the mid-year test article. They explain the tour and include the touring and home nations squad. Last year was the first year that tour articles were created for the individual tours/series, and people has repeated this, this year to keep it consistent.
The article title is not really relevant, and not my main objection to the article. Likewise the issue of week numbers, my objection to which has nothing to do with the IRB window. However, they are clearly original research, arbitrary and misleading. Linking from them in a contents box is utterly pointless as the reader can't possibly know what the links mean or where they would go.
As for sources, did you read what I wrote above? Of course there are mentions of these matches in numerous reliable sources. There are even lists of results out there, grouped as summer tests/mid-year tests or similar names. However, that isn't enough, and we definitely shouldn't keep articles based on whether we like editing them or because we want to acknowledge the effort that has gone into them.
The crux of the issue is notability - we can't just lump a bunch of stats together and make up a new topic for an article. Does this article's subject meet the general and specific notability criteria? In my view, as I already explained, it doesn't. Do you believe there has been significant prose coverage of the summer tests/mid-year tests as a subject in reliable sources? If you do, can you please point it out, because I have looked and not found it yet. --hippo43 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong KEEP - A dumbass is born every minute, hey hippo, while you are at it, why don't you put EVERY RUGBY RELATED article for deletion? These articles have been here for years, I have contributed to MOST of them and now we have idiots like you trying to get it deleted because he find the terme mid year and end of year to be misconstrued?. The reason we do not USE the word "SUMMER" or "AUTUMN" is because those 'weathers' only apply to the touring team so its seems idiotic to use.. we prefer Mid-year and end of year cause thats when there tests take place, its the middle of the year usually may-July or at the end of the year between October to December. I hope they use this nomination as an EXAMPLE the next time an idiot decides to nominate another rugby related article without thinking it through....Please SNOW this now...--Stemoc (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a compelling and very articulate argument, based on a rigorous assessment of the notability criteria and a sound understanding of the principles of Wikipedia. Well done. --hippo43 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking at your block log, you seem like someone who really understands wikipedia policies. You will be on my mind as the person to ask if i wanted to know a lot more about Asian fetishes ONLY..not rugby.. thank you.--Stemoc (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all very interesting, but still no argument. If you feel like making a civil, coherent contribution, can you address the question of notability? Maybe point us towards the sources that would establish it? --hippo43 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability?, wait, are you now implying all those tests over the last decade are so are not notable and should be deleted? Now you are really making no sense. Just because they do not fall under some desired "name", they should be deleted?...What sources are you talking about? Look up any rugby site, they will all be listed including those posted above..those not good enough for you? Do you even know rugby or are you just one of those editors with a stick up their posterior trying to act like goody-2-shoes hoping to get noticed?...The page itself has received over 44000 views over the last 90 days and yet you find it "not important"--Stemoc (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please read the notability guidelines and, if you can, please point me towards the coverage of the subject which would show notability. --hippo43 (talk)
Maybe its you that needs or read the notability guidelines but since you lack the know-how to do so, let me do it for you. Firstly
  • All these games fall under IRB regulations and are approved by the IRB.
  • Most of these games are given test status by the IRB alone and thus it means that these games play a major part in the IRB World Rankings for all these nations that played in "test-status" matches.
  • One of the major requirements for inclusion on wikipedia is Verifiability which means that everything is Sourced and if you look at the bottom of every article of the years, everything is SOURCED and VERIFIED.

The only problem at this stage is the NAME. Though IRB calls it the June tests and the November tests, it doesn't necessarily happen in those months only. Grande has provided you sources in relation to this. I honestly do not like the name either, I prefer it to be called 2013 mid-year rugby friendlies so that we can list all those matches that do not fall under their own article including those played by non-test teams as well. The term "test" itself implies only those matches which are played by 2 TEST (international) teams. We already discussed this on that page's talk section regarding which matches that should be included in the article and those which deserve their own article...Anything other matches that is played by a test nation is regarded as part of that team's tour and thus deserves to be included for example Tonga playing a USA club team midweek before their test against USA...There are other IRB Nations Cup qualification tournaments happening as well but since they do not have their own article yet, they also deserve to be included in this "GENERAL" article--Stemoc (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Stemoc said, everything is sourced, the name of the article is fine, we've resolved the problem about the article stating the series, which why it's know as mid-year rugby union tests rather than mid-year rugby test series. As mentioned above, we can't call it Summer internationals because the although the Northern Hemisphere is in summer, the Southern Hemisphere is in winter and vice versa when it comes to the November Internationals. The same reasoning why we can't call it June internationals because most of the time the mid-year tests starts in May.
With regards to this year, every source is of the Third-party regolations, heck every match has it's own report included linking readers to a reliable source. Thus there is no need for the article to be deleted. hippo43 is making a fuss over nothing! Rugby.change (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you both failed to address Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Verifiability is a straw man - no one has argued the data is not accurate, or not verifiable, but that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Please read and address WP:N and WP:SPORTSEVENT. If you think this subject (not just matches within it) has received the significant coverage required by reliable sources, beyond just stats, please point us towards the relevant sources. --hippo43 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As we said, officially the mid-year tests are know as the June Internationals "IRB Match Official Appointments for British & Irish Lions tour to Australia, IRB Pacific Nations Cup and June internationals" but due to consistant matches being played outside of June I.E England v Barbarians on May 26, the article is known as the mid-year test as it during the Mid-year international window, witch is real Official title (reference above). However many reliable website mention June Internationals as the Mid-year tests for the mid-year Test window on June 10, All of these referees have been appointed to mid-year Tests and Mid-year refs appointed there is nothing else to discuss. When will you admit you are wrong, and that more people wants to Keep than Support. Rugby.change (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will try again. You have failed to address Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No one has argued the data is not accurate, or not verifiable, but that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Please read and address WP:N and WP:SPORTSEVENT. If you think this subject (not just matches within it) has received the significant coverage required by reliable sources, beyond just stats, please point us towards the relevant sources. --hippo43 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we are getting the wrong end of the stick, the please go ahead and explain as simple as you can make it! Rugby.change (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Read this guideline - WP:N then this one - WP:SPORTSEVENT. (Maybe also WP:NSEASONS)
They are the guidelines that relate to whether a subject is notable enough to merit an article. Please carefully consider the main question - has the topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - and come back and give your opinion on it. --hippo43 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rugby.change has just given you the evidence you wanted in this link. The IRB specifically refers to the (badly named) "June internationals", all of the matches for which are listed here. If the IRB, the global governing body for this sport which we so dearly love, considers the matches worthy of grouping together, then I believe so should we. – PeeJay 01:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, he hasn't demonstrated significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Where are the reliable sources that discuss this group of games as a subject, beyond simply listing games or stats? --hippo43 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I listed significant coverage from various sources above. ESPN, Setanta, Rugby Canada, The Guardian... What more do you want? Grande (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Ok, I've read the guideline and I still believe the article is notable. The first thing the guidelines says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Yes the article has received significant coverage in Reliable sources which are all relevant to the article. I personally added the references to the article myself, originally it included no references. I recently added a few external link as-well. On the WP:SPORTSEVENT article it says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." and again I will repeat myself, in the opening text, references are used to back information up. Every match has a report, backing those details up. From this, there physically can't be anything else to change. Once tours are finished, the overview section will be referenced with the tour result (obviously cant do it now, tours sill in progress). The most important thing here, is that the article if informing people on the test taking place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Wikipedia is for - informing people on information. To be fair, everything is consistent with past years.

To conclude NOTHING NEEDS TO CHANGE!!!! Rugby.change (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't demonstrated significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There are reports of individual matches referenced, but where are the reliable sources that discuss this group of games as a subject, beyond simply listing games or stats? --hippo43 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be one. Along as reports for individual fixtures are there and references for tour announcements are there, it doesn't matter about anything else. If it helps, there's and external link to list of International fixtures on ESPN at the bottom of the article! Rugby.change (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the notability guideline says essentially the opposite. --hippo43 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per PeeJay, Grande, Stemoc and others. --Bob247 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Right, I'm out of here. This discussion is clearly over, having reached a decent level of consensus. No point arguing my case any further. If you need me, you know where I'll be. – PeeJay 03:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Recommend a SNOW close. Clearly these matches are covered in multiple reliable sources (as per Hamish59, Grande and Stemoc). This isn't an artificial construct (the June international window is stipulated by the IRB to ensure that domestic sides release players for international fixtures). From reading the discussion, it looks to me like the nominator doesn't like that the article lists this particular group of matches together (even though there is NO doubt that the individual matches are themselves notable), but rather than discuss it at the article talk page, or at the WP:RU talk page, decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater and propose this ridiculous AfD. Hippo43 has wasted a lot of people's time because he chose this more WP:DRAMATIC method of raising his concerns. - Shudde talk 01:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Shudde's last comment that Hippo43 has chosen a disruptive method to try to make a larger point. In case anyone is interested in further evidence that the June tests should be logically grouped together in one article, there is a terrific article on ESPN from June 2012 that discusses the IRB's calendar for June tests "False dawn for Pacific Nations". The article several times refers to the June tests (and also the Nov tests) as a group:
    • "the recent action-paced tours window"
    • "the Pacific nations are destined to live off scraps in the June window"
    • "the implementation of the '2012-2019 IRB Tours and Test schedule'"
    • "open to the same kind of treatment during the November international window"
    • "the ever-popular end-of-year clashes"
    • "the Pacific nations were already assured of exposure to the top sides during the November international window". Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2013 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2013_mid-year_rugby_test_series