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.
Declined CSD-spam, still doesn't look notable to me. MBisanztalk 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?) ThemFromSpace 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, --
GedUK 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 MarshallTalk/
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 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
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.