Talk:Flint Rogues Rugby Club

Latest comment: 15 years ago by 76.112.52.181 in topic untitled

untitled

edit

To Whom It May Concern: I have attempted to create a page for the Flint Rogues RFC and apparently we are not good enough for wikipedia, so we wish our page to be deleted. I have attempted to do so many times but someone keeps putting the page back up. If you want it up, leave it alone and let me put the information on it that is necessary to have it look decent and provide the relevant information; otherwise delete the entire thing. I will be sure to put some other wikipedia pages about other rugby clubs up here as well so you "editors" can take them down as well otherwise it will be painfully obvious that you are unfairly targeting the Flint Rogues club page.

38.192.2.99 (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Jasonschilling6Reply

Just take this page down. I am sick of dealing with wikipedia and its "editors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.240.176 (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

To all you "editors" out there: why is this page acceptable by wikipedia standards but the Flint Rogues RFC's page is not? The narrative on the Flint Rogue's history is far more neutral than this team's history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortals_RLFC

99.36.240.176 (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Jasonschilling6Reply

Huh, here is another one. Why is this team's page notable but not the Flint Rogues RFC? Just because a sports club is affiliated with a university, does that automatically make them noteworthy? I hate throwing other teams pages under the bus but if the Flint Rogues RFC contiually gets targeted for removal, then these other clubs should as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Dearborn_Rugby

99.36.240.176 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Jasonschilling6Reply

Wow, amazing that none of the "editors" want to respond to these posts; I figured as much.

99.36.240.176 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Jasonschilling6Reply


I have no problem with taking the Facebook link out but I don't know why the new pictures posted were removed.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.52.181 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply