Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balbridie

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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn and no other calls for deletion. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balbridie[edit]

~~It's....a house. Near historic structures. Doesn't quite meet WP:N, in my opinion~~ скоморохъ ^ѧ 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn per WP:HEY. скоморохъ ^ѧ 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stong speedy keep. This bad faith nomination occurred only minutes after the article's creation. Please do not nominate AfD s in areas for which you have no knowledge. This archaeological site is one of the most important in Scotland as one will see after I have a few hours to work on it. Hadrianheugh (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please assume good faith. I nominated the article for deletion because it failed to state any reason why the topic was notable and did not fall under any obvious speedy category. If you do not want your inadequate articles deleted, I suggest you develop them in a sandbox first or at the very least make use of {{in use}} or {{under construction}}. Best of luck developing the article. скоморохъ ^ѧ 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't state any reason why the topic was notable? Being from the Neolithic period wasn't enough? An AfD is a last resort when all avenues of establishing notability have been exhausted, not within the first few minutes of an article's creation.--Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh, please avoid AfD-nominating articles of uncertain notability that were created less than one hour beforehand (it was only 6 minutes in the case of Balbridie) The deletion policy WP:D states that "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". AfD is used only as a last resort when it is absolutely clear that there is no possible way of improving an article to meet WP's policies; obviously a very newly created article like Balbridie, even one without an {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} tag, is not suitable for AfD.

Keep - A notable archaeological site dating back to the Neolithic era. --Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not an unusual site, but more worthy of being on wikipedia than many an article. User:Hadrianheugh has produced many worthwhile articles on wikipedia as well. --MacRusgail (talk) 22:39, 31 January 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.