Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby League Teams

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. Jujutacular ^talk 07:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Teams

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

Was deleted by PROD earlier this year. It is a misleading title, as it only covers a fraction of the actual teams out there, is only a current snapshot of the situation (not covering defunct or merged teams) and Category:Rugby_league_teams does the job much more effectively. It should be deleted, and if it is deemed that the cat alone isn't enough, then re-created with proper capitalisation, proper referencing and a complete scope, or renamed to Current Rugby league teams in fully professional leagues... which I don't think is warranted. The-Pope (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's redundant to Super League and to National Rugby League, and although I appreciate the contribution from a relatively new (6 months ago anyway) Wikipedian, I don't see any information in here that isn't in there. The gist of the article is that there are two major leagues on opposite sides of the world, and then it names the teams in the two leagues. It's covered in more detail in the other articles. Mandsford 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Aggregate article that seems to be duplicating information from two base articles. No need for it. scope_creep (talk) 3:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete what scope_creep said; article seems to be a unreferenced list in disguise. Ryan Norton 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not a worldwide list, and unsourced. Other articles have better detail. Techman224^Talk 22:55, 16 August 2010 (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.