Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swords RFC

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swords RFC

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

WP:NN Gnevin (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability". As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies. As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate." Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it meets Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability point 2. "Played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union". The team is a member club of the IRFU and plays in a recognised competition. See Page 105. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few significant mentions in the Fingal independent.[1] [2] [3] [4] Appears to be a local paper so may not be the greatest reference for notability. More mentions in the Herald [5] and even one in a Swedish (I think) paper.[6] There is also the lessr consideration of WP:Otherstuffexists. 14 clubs play in the Leinster League Division Three and it does not seem like a good idea to delete three of them. AIRcorn (talk) 13:11, 8 October 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.