Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kougari Oval
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kougari Oval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Delete nothing to indicate that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of content beyond a basic definition. - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Being a crappy stub is a reason to expand - or at least try to - not for deletion before any attempts are made to do so. This is the home ground of one of Queensland's top rugby league clubs (the former club of the great Wally Lewis, no less). I've made a small start at improving the article. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In general I agree with you about stubs, but there has to be a line somewhere. In this case, anyone trying to provide a larger article wouldn't have lost any useful information from a deletion. Anyone trying to write an article on the topic would've found the stub info. Stubs aren't supposed to be placeholders but short articles with some useful content. I voted to delete because I didn't consider it to be a reasonable stub. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comments. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In general I agree with you about stubs, but there has to be a line somewhere. In this case, anyone trying to provide a larger article wouldn't have lost any useful information from a deletion. Anyone trying to write an article on the topic would've found the stub info. Stubs aren't supposed to be placeholders but short articles with some useful content. I voted to delete because I didn't consider it to be a reasonable stub. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep rewritten version. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and very tidy stub after improvements. Worth expanding, yes... but not worth deleting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't know how it looked when it was nominated, but it's a keeper now. §FreeRangeFrog 02:15, 16 February 2009 (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.