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. Nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow rugby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Merge into Rugby union. Its the same game with the same rules as union,rugby in the snow is not notable enough to its own article . Gnevin (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Withsdrawn per Aircorn Gnevin (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apart from your bad manners (putting a delete tag on an article which is under construction), it is not the same as standard rugby, anymore than beach rugby, touch rugby, mini rugby or sevens are. It is impossible to play standard rugby in deep snow, the clothing is different etc etc. But then again I expect you didn't really think that through, anymore than you did with the Irish flag issue.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. If you want proper sources, look in a library, not on the internet. Weblinks are usually dead after a year or two. That's one of the reasons that Wikipedia is a joke.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems to be kicking off just fine [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], and these three are from the Estonian Rugby Federation [11] [12] [13] - frankie (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest a Procedural close. After it was nominated for deletion the user moved it from mainspace to a user sandbox. This AfD should be closed since the article was removed. (I do suspect this would meet the WP:GNG, though [14][15].) Qrsdogg (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did this, because I would like it to be reasonably complete before I put it back up again. The article will be moved into main space soon, but in the meantime, I object to someone slapping a deletion notice on an article which is under construction.

Gnevin has caused serious problems, and time wasting with rugby articles in the past. I can't be bothered with that again just now.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand per Mac. On a side note, it should not have been moved during this discussion. --Bob247 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What evidence is there that this isn't just Rugby in the snow? Gnevin (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might as well just be, but that makes no difference. It was considered enough of a sport to have a demonstration game held at the 2008 National Winter Games in India [16] [17]. This is not made up - frankie (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to preserve it, I shall be putting it back up in the next few weeks. I think it is incredibly rude, and unfair to judge an article before it is considered complete.

Using Occam's Razor, it cannot be just "rugby in the snow". One doesn't play standard fifteen a-side rugby in several layers of clothing, long trousers and gloves.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. I will copy the content back onto this page, but I am keeping a copy elsewhere just in case.[reply]

• Weak keep Being demonstrated as its own sport (i.e not a normal rugby game being played when it is snowing, but actually requiring snow to play) in the Indian National Winter Games is enough to just push it over WP:GNG for me. While a merge is a possibility, as it may struggle to go beyond stub status, I would oppose merging it into the rugby union article anymore than the mention it gets currently alongside beach rugby. If an article titled Variants of rugby union, or similar, is created and this has not been expanded much further I may support a merge into that, but as it currently stands it should probably stay as a stub. AIRcorn (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article was edited to reflect this then I would withdrawn the nomination as the game in Krasnoyarsk is union in the snow and the Baltic countries seem to be mentioned because its known to snow there Gnevin (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Krasnoyarsk is just union played in the snow. However, the Indian rugby tournament held specifically in the snow suggests that it has expanded somewhat into its own niche and as I said above just pushes it over the GNG in my opinion. Its definatley needs work, but I feel it has potential and would like to give the editor a chance to expand on specific "snow rugby" games. Personally I would be interested in any rule/practical variations (rucks, clothing, displaying field lines etc). I am not discounting a future merge, but in my opinion it should definately not be merged into the rugby overview article. An article explaining the different variations (sevens, beach, touch etc) would not be a stupid idea and this could be made to fit in there quite well if expansion is not possible. AIRcorn (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as per aircorn GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:06, 8 July 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.