Talk:Reading R.F.C.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reading R.F.C. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Berkshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rugby union Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

PROD Comment

Don't want this to be an all or nothing argument, but 3 other teams in this league have articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.39.11 (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the prod tag, because I think that this team plays at a high enough level to mean that it should be considered notable. I don't know of any specific rule of thumb for rugby union teams put it is generally accepted that English association football teams as far down as level 10 of the pyramid (5 levels below the lowest national level) are considered notable, so, given the relative amount of coverage that the sports get, I would think that the same would apply to a rugby union team playing at level 4, the second highest sub-national level. At least I think that there should be some discussion before we delete an article on a team at this level. Searching for sources is rather difficult, especially as using the article title in searches gets lots of hits about reading RFCs! Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to meet the requirements for notability at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), by citing secondary sources. I am astonished that anybody thought it reasonable to nominate this article for deletion; it is a reasonable article on a clearly notable subject, and it cites references to prove it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reading R.F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905134952/http://rhinos.ultimatebigfish.net/ to http://rhinos.ultimatebigfish.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]