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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
To answer your question: yes, there are people who care. That is, however, not the point. This article is well sourced (which, quite obviously, means it is notable: your personal tastes can't dictate deletion or inclusion), and please remember that wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion on the topic in question, but rather for discussion on improving or otherwise making changes to the article in question.--Life in General (Talk) 16:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it took a year for anyone to reply to that message partly makes my point! The reason I was questioning if it should be removed is not due to personal opinions (though, if you see my profile you'll probably have worked out as an avid Welsh rugby fan recent results have left a bit of a bitter taste!) but rather if there's not the appetite to keep a page up to date and relevant than it becomes a liability for the encyclopaedia....though as long as people are happy to update, then all is good! Richardeast (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
