Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Moon on the Quad


 * 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. We cannot force the community to accept a merge, esp. of unsourced material. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Full Moon on the Quad
Non-notable tradition specific to one university campus with no verifiable sources. Suggested merging to the Stanford University article, which was summarily dismissed. Nominating for deletion accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if merged into the Standford article. Otherwise Delete; there isn't enough noteworthiness to merit an article.  Cassavau 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why does the article need to stay if the content is merged into Stanford? I suggested the merge, but the editors at Stanford deleted the suggestion. I'd be all for keeping this as a redirect if it's merged, but one way or another, there shouldn't be an article here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Unsourced it is OR and cannot be a stand-alone article. It is open to the Stanford editors to incorporate in their article if they wish. BlueValour 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol merge vote.svg|15px]] Merge with Standford per Cassavau.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - it seems that this has been tried. However, if the Stanford editors don't find it important enough to take we can't force them since they will just revert the merge. BlueValour 00:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, that is exactly what I tried before proposing AfD. I was going to merge and rename. When my tag came down with no discussion, I took it as a sign that they didn't want the merge. Accordingly, I don't see a recommendation to merge as a reasonable outcome of this discussion, since it will be a de facto delete. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2006 (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.