Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bath impact


 * 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 delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Bath impact
A great newspaper - but doesn't need it's own page... A section on "Student Media" on Uni of Bath could include Impact + CTV + URB. --Mintchocicecream 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  No opinion. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * delete nn, agree with above. Dxco 06:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm a student at Bath. Impact is a free student newspaper, and while it's OK reading if you're bored it's no more notable than the newsletter at a fairly large company. Its readership is unmeasurable as it's given out free. Someone on the talk page pointed out that some student newspapers have venerable histories: well, Impact doesn't as far as I know. --Last Malthusian 10:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The school has enough of a history that the paper might be notable, though there's no way to tell from the current stub or from the paper's webpage.  If kept, move to Bath Impact.  I could also get on board with a Merge to University of Bath. -Colin Kimbrell 03:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, or, at best, Merge with University of Bath. It's only a free student newspaper, for crying out loud. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.

FROM EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:

I'm glad you think the publication I have spent 9 months (and my predecessors have spent 5 years) creating, is pointless. But what I believe to be more pointless is your obvious glorification of your own self importance over a harmless article on this very sucessful publication.

Thank You