Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GWYF


 * 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, Babajobu 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

GWYF
Delete non-notable group of kids Drdisque 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Austin 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)SirAus Sorry, but I beleive it entirely depends on what one defines by non-notable. This group is one of the most widely known reenacting groups in Virginia. I'm new here, so I don't really understand the criteria for deletion or non-deletion. Is it because this group isn't known outside of the reenacting arena or what?
 * Delete doesn't quite meet speedy criteria, but nn definately. - FrancisTyers 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable biography. Why doesn't it qualify for speedy?  I don't see any assertions of importance in this article about a group of people.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 00:48Z 
 * Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination, nn. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is an article about Historical reenactment I'd vote merge with that rather than lose the page entirely.Jcuk 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Having just come across Comparison_of_historical_reenactment_groups I vote Keep as there seems to be a precedent already Jcuk 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep, according to the article Jcuk mentioned we've got several articles reenactment groups. I'm not sure what would make them notable, so I'll go hunt for mentions in local newspapers, but age alone is a bad indicator for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent sources on which to base an article. Apart from their own websites, found nothing on Google but directory entries, listing in a local paper (which confirms their existence but nothing else), and the blog of someone who joined them. Notability is comparable to school/college clubs and garage bands, which are almost always deleted. --Malthusian (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment school/college clubs and garage bands are ten a penny - can we say the same about historical re-enactment groups? - FrancisTyers 20:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-significant, Vanity article—LeFlyman 15:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, someone who knows how PLEASE fix the picture. (Yes, I know I could try and go learn how...) --Samuel J. Howard 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly sure what you wanted done, but I've cleaned up the page and added a caption to the picture. Turnstep 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn per above. Eusebeus 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn per nom Mushintalk 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because it has many entries on Google and is locally notable. -- Eddie 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn-bio. --Terence Ong Talk 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» T 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as this article is non-notable. SycthosTalk 02:40, 15 January 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.