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 S-keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westover and Bournemouth Rowing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable subject matter and bad article, the user that created this appears to exist only for the creation and promotion of this article Fallenfromthesky (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added notification on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rowing Paulbrock (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Two of the three reasons given in the nomination are not valid. Bad articles can be made better, Single article editors can create articles. Only notability matters and this looks notable to me, so I sugesst keep and expect someone closer to the details to give more information and improve the article. --Bduke (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

--Nroseuk (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)I am compiling the history of this club and only set up a user profile to add information to Wikipedia about the club. Last night was my first attempt at using Wikipedia so I cut and paste information from the web site. As requeste by you I have changed this and added a bit of history. The club is notable at producing World Class champions and organising the annual weekly regatta - the facal point of Bournemouth's social scene for over a century and has equal (if not more) relevence to Bournemouth as the Rugby and Football clubs listed on the sporting sections.--Nroseuk (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep We've got to knock this off with nominating articles for deletion less than a day after they have been created. Sure, SPAM, Copyvio, and nonsense/hoax can all get blasted, but something that requires a judgment on notability should be given more than 24 hours to develop. Beyond the fact that we are passing judgment on a subject we likely no little about without time for an expert to weigh in, we have the added effect of pushing away new wikipedia users. Protonk (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's nothing in the WP "rules" against creating an account solely for the creation of a single article. Nor is there any guideline that says articles so created must be deleted. I don't know the club in question (as I'm no Englishman), but amateur rowing clubs that have competed in the Henley Royal Regatta and produced world champions are generally pretty notable. Don't expect to find your results under Google, though. The newspaper archive would be a much better place to check for sources.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination - obviously not given article creator adequate time, nomination was too trigger happy. Apologies! Paulbrock (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Clearly ready for the weekend, not even my nom! Apologies AGAIN! and Keep as not enough time given to establish article. Paulbrock (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this resolved? - Can we remove the box about deletion? Thnaks --Nroseuk (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Nomination Admins please resolve as keep. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.