Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ormskirk Heelers

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 Speedy close. Withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ormskirk Heelers

Ormskirk Heelers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Per WP:N and WP:V. Billscottbob (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am creator of this page. Firstly I'd like to voice my opinion on the way you handled this article, simply sticking notes to it after just 2 minutes of me creating it. Do I no longer have the time to post what I have done, look at what I have done and then try and improve it a little more? Or do you moderators seem to want to give off the impression that you are watching our every move. I am not trying to a go at you, I am simply saying that you could have given me more time to improve the article.

In regards to the verifiability of the content, you will find that I have now included my references and sources. They comprise of five references, mostly made up of other teams websites who write match reports and type up the results. You'll also find two external links to more sources and articles about the club.

In regards to your notability, have you even read the article? This team was a member of the Rugby League Conference. If you'd have followed my link, that was put under "See Also", and scroll down to "2007 Structure" then you'd see that there are many rugby league clubs at the same level as Ormskirk Heelers who have their own page. Surely it isn't fair that some teams have notability over others despite them being in the same league and therefore playing at the same level.

If there are any other ways that you wish for me to improve the article, please contact me. Although I would prefer it if you were to actually talk to me about more specific points. Poiuytre (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want your article critically reviewed as soon as it is posted, please use the {{underconstruction}} template. As for your points about the articles notability, since it has already been listed for AfD, other editors will decide whether your points are valid. I apologize for under-estimating the article's notability based upon insufficient reading of the article. Other editors will be able to have their say during this process, and it is no longer up to me to decide whether the article is worthy or not. Billscottbob (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Question to Nominator The main AFd page states:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

In which of the two minutes of this articles existance did you take this step?--Cube lurker (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please address the nomination and not the nominator. Corvus cornix_talk 00:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Appologies if i've stepped out of bounds, I felt the nomination and nominator were intertwined. I don't see how there can be a valid afd on a 2 minute old article. On reflection it was probably bad form. I'll strike through the question.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Striking my wrongly directed comments. I appologize. However I suggest that the article be given a moment to grow based on the directions listed on the main AFD page.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to apologize for my poor nomination. Thank you for all of your advice. I will keep the advice I have been given in mind for the future. Billscottbob (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw Nomination on the basis that I incorrectly marked this page for AfD and I am the only one who has voted. Billscottbob (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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.