Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse Nation

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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Nation

Declined CSD-spam, still doesn't look notable to me. MBisanz ^talk 07:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has been blocked, for using sock puppets to vote-stack at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a search on Google News that didn't pick up anything, although I'm not sure as to what I should look for as the article doesn't even state what Pulse Nation actually is (a student organization?) Them From Space 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Lots more information added now and lots more 3rd party references added too! Blob123456 18:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Ged UK 10:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down to the Cherwell sources. The others are not reliable sources. Cut or source the "Famous faces" section. Cut the "current activity" schedule per failure of sources and WP:NOTDIR which says it should not be listed even if sourced.—After cutting, consider whether there's sufficient material for a separate article. I'd say not, in which case merge to University of Oxford.
On no account delete outright without a merge. Well-sourced material should not be removed from Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm sure there is an appropriate article to merge to, though it certainly doesn't warrant a page of its own. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable, no widespread coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Struck !vote of sock puppet. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable due to lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. (Even their URL redirects to Facebook). At best they're a non notable entertainments company, at worst its a puff piece for the Union ents reps. Nuttah (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable tiny company. -Drdisque (talk) 03:44, 23 April 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.