User talk:Jackbauer24gp

Speedy deletion nomination of Exit 41
A tag has been placed on Exit 41, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Exit 41 and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calltech (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Response
I didn't respond previously because the question didn't come from a registered account, so there was no obvious place to direct my response. I'm going to decline the request. I'm dubious of the value here, and as you say you're a participant, it still strikes me as self-promotional. What you say about all teams being school-sanctioned actually contradicts what was in the previous version of the article. Normally to resolve such issues, we would want to find appropriate source material. That helps ensure that articles can be kept accurate and of the topic is of some notability. At the time, the league apparently didn't even have a website, let alone any independent sources to draw upon. --Michael Snow (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have sources identified, I'm not going to stand in the way of you recreating the article, if that interests you. But given the lack of sources in the previous article, and as previously mentioned, the fact that your information contradicts some of it, I'm not inclined to undelete what was there. I think building a fresh article would have a better chance of maintaining accuracy and is a decent way to test the usefulness of the sources. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)