Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby league in Germany


 * 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 of the debate was keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Rugby league in Germany

 * Keep - Not much content at the moment, but the sport is in its infacy in Germany. The page can only grow with RL in Germany.  I'd like to see persons involved with the sport in Germany put more content to show the RL-sceptics out there that the sport is growing on continental Europe.  Sjgenius 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Interesting to watch the subject of the article grow, and with it the article. The article is now fit for inclusion. --Ceevee 09:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Poorly written. Sounds like an advert. Not notable yet for a place in the Wikipedia. --Computerjoe 13:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - worthwhile topic, AFD should not be used for editorial work - David Gerard 13:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very weak Keep. The article, as it stands, is certainly poorly written. The subject is worth keeping, IF THE ARTICLE IS RE-WRITTEN, because it's dealing with a VERY popular sport in a country that isn't known for playing it well, but that plays other sports well. JanesDaddy 14:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I attempted a re-write at Talk:Rugby_league_in_Germany. Is that any better? As you'll see, there are articles about rugby league in a bunch of other countries too, some of which have an article is under construction banner. JanesDaddy 18:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment much better. --Computerjoe 18:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - information on the page is relevant and interesting. At most needs a clean up. POds 14:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Clearly needs clean-up rather than deletion. Rhollenton 16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. Relevant information. I liked JanesDaddy's rewrite. Carioca 19:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite --Tim Fellows 04:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, page has been cleaned-up quite well now. Grinner 10:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, small needed cleanup have been made. Lincher 04:29, 16 December 2005 (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.