Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting in Humberside
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 of the debate was keep. Kimchi.sg 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scouting in Humberside[edit]
Delete unencyclopedic, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info and contact information - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete part of it was copy and pasted from here[1]. Extremly unencylopedic, violates WP:NOT as it appears to be an attempt at promotion. Yanksox (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep its no differant from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_in_Leicestershire and that has been alowed!!!!!!!!!!!!! plus its only been up LITRALY 2 seconds and your submiting it for deletetion! the site will never grow if you dont let other people come along to make amentments to it.Phil4071 talk
- This AfD will go five days. Plenty of time for anyone to advocate for retention. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an ad, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. --Coredesat 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. This article is unencyclopedic as it stands but it should be improved. There is a place for articles about Scouting at the County level in UK, State level in the US and Australia, Province level in Canada, etc. but not at lower levels. --Bduke 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cleaned it up and made it rather like the articles for other Scout Counties in the UK, but it needs more wikipedia information as many of the other County articles now have. --Bduke 02:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as it no longer reads like an ad. --Coredesat 05:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after Bduke's rewrite, problems identified by nom seem to be fixed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No longer vio of WP:NOT, nor ad-like, and now wikified. Is now simply a stub that needs expanded. Rlevse 09:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. It may or may not read like an ad, but there's no notability given or implied. Tychocat 08:45, 22 June 2006 (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.