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. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England vs The Big Three at rugby union[edit]

Firstly, this article duplicates existing content at England vs Australia at rugby union, England vs New Zealand at rugby union, and England vs South Africa at rugby union, all of which should be adequately accessible from articles on the English rugby team.

Secondly, the concept of "The Big Three" is somewhat POV and not in wide use. Northern hemisphere journalists seem to use it as a space saver, but I've never heard it used in new Zealand. I found at least one rugby reference where the phrase meant something else. I see little benefit or logic behind separating these three countries from all England's opponents.

Note: This article was previously proposed for deletion and contested without reason after 6 days. dramatic (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above reasoning. I agree that the title "The big three" is pretty POV, and I too have never heard it in NZ (where the term "Big three Southern Hemisphere teams" might be used, but only the most parochial fans are unlikely to regard them as inherently superior to either England or France. The term "Tri-Nations sides" is more likely). England's appearance in three RWC finals (only equalled by Australia, sigh) is further indication that naming a "big three" faces various problems. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of whether big three is POV (usually the term is Big Five meaning England, France, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand), the info in this article is redundant, and is adequately covered in other articles. - Shudde ^talk 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.
Delete per the above reasons Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplication, and the name is not only POV but time sensitive. What do we do if the so-called "big three" are different in two years time? Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful material to the head-to-head of other pages. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplication, and as an Australian rugby fan I too have never heard the term "big three" used in the way it's being used here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:40, 19 June 2008 (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.