Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balbriggan RFC


 * 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 keep. Nobody apart from the nominator thinks this material should be deleted. WP:NAC— S Marshall T/C 09:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)'''

Balbriggan RFC

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - Multiple deletion nominations per minute via automation, no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed, insufficient cut-and-paste nomination rationale. This will be rubberstamped where appropriate, just like these sort of nominations were. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep "WP:NN" is another name for WP:N, which means that the nomination says, "WP:Notability".  As per WP:Speedy keep reason # 1 the nomination does not advance a reason for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This AfD can be closed immediately by a non-involved editor who feels that there is "no doubt" that a speedy keep applies.  As per WP:NAC, "...a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIR corn  (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff...or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
 * Comment also fails WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the edit to the nomination, WP:REDACT at WP:TPG states,

Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:
 * Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
 * An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded like that and ends up like that."
 * An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded like that and ends up like that."
 * An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded like that and ends up like that."


 * Unscintillating (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    03:30, 9 October 2011 (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.