|
The following WikiProject rugby union advice page is to help editors determine if a rugby union topic is notable enough to deserve its own article in Wikipedia.
General
In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has been the subject of multiple published[1] non-trivial[2] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]
- Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.
- Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
- Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage.
Biographies
- Note: This guidance is identical to and is the source of the generally accepted guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (sports).
WikiProject Rugby union participants have adopted the following guidelines for notability of a rugby union person for an article in Wikipedia:
A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered:
- a "High Performance Union" at any time(see Note 1) or another test nation during an appearance at the men's Rugby World Cup(see Note 2) or,
- a team in a notable fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,
- a national rugby sevens team that has (a) participated in the in the Olympics, (b) been at any time a World Rugby Sevens Series "core team", (c) reached the cup quarterfinals (top 8) of the Rugby World Cup Sevens, or (d) reached the cup quarterfinals (top 8) in the Commonwealth Games, or
- a women's national team in at least the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.(see Note 3)
- Note 1: "High Performance Unions" for men are: Argentina, Australia, British and Irish Lions, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Georgia (at Rugby World Cups 2003, 2017, 2011 and 2015 and from 2016–present), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Namibia (at Rugby World Cups 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 and from 2016–present), New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, Uruguay (at Rugby World Cups 1999, 2003 and 2015 and from 2016–present) and Wales.[5] Women do not have this criterion.
- Note 2: Non-High Performance Unions nations that have appeared at the World cup are: Ivory Coast (1995), Portugal (2007), Spain (1999), Russia (2011 and 2019) 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, 2014 and 2021), England (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2017 and 2021), France (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2017 and 2021), Ireland (2014), New Zealand (1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2017 and 2021), United States (1991, 1994, 1998 and 2017), 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.
The failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. In particular, players from the early days of rugby cannot meet these criteria as they pre-date the era of first-class rugby.
Also, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about person's importance on a talk page or VfD page -- the article itself must document notability.
Clubs
In addition to Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, the criteria below governing notability of rugby union clubs are derived from and should be interpreted consistently with the guidelines for organizations (WP:ORG). WP:ORG establishes notability guidelines that are generally applicable to all organizations, but also states that certain subject areas "may be governed by more specific guidelines."
A rugby union club is presumed notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
- Played in the top national competition of any nation, or played in any professional Division 2 national competition (e.g., Rugby Pro D2 or RFU Championship).[6]
- Played in an officially recognized adult domestic national or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union.
- Been a founding member of a national rugby union/federation.
- Provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union.
- Participated for more than one year in the United States of America College Division 1-A, Varsity Cup, or Collegiate Rugby Championship.[7]
An amateur rugby union club is unlikely to be notable, unless it meets one of the above criteria or has been shown to meet the broader WP:N criteria.
Competitions
A rugby union competition is deemed notable if:
- it is the top national club league competition of any nation,
- it is the top national club cup competition of any nation, or
- the competing clubs are wholly or mostly members of the top national club league competition.
References
What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Rugbydata and ESPN stats guru are generally considered trivial sources, but are useful for filling in details of an otherwise notable subjects. Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability. An example of an AfD discussion for a club that did not meet this criteria can be found at TSB Ravensburg.
|
