Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grateful Red


 * 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   no consensus. and sources found show there's the possibility for improvement to the article. TravellingCari 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Grateful Red

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Cheering section of a basketball team without significant third party coverage or notability off campus Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — Even though article is covered in sources here, it doesn't provide any significant coverage from sources independent of the subject to establish notability. MuZemike  ( talk ) 14:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. Jeremiah (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, there seem to be a number of articles about College basketball student sections and I've added some sources including a Detroit Press article. I also note that other non-Wisconsin sources mention the section. Duke's section was not deleted in an AfD earlier this year. I could probably be convinced of a merger to Kohl Center or Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball, but those seem to be rather lengthy articles right now. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP pending upgrades to the article.  Group is notable and satisfies WP:ORG.  See Google page and news search results.     BroadSt_Bully  [talk]  20:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per Dual Freq's arguments. – Lordmontu  (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * keep and allow to develop, per the bully's links. The sources are there, just not in the article.  Tag it, fix it.   P HARMBOY   ( moo )  00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Doesn't meet WP:ORG, but certainly notability is asserted. Master&amp;Expert  ( Talk ) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. References need work but Google shows that it has notability.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs work but still has a place in Wikipedia. Sawyer1990 (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - receives coverage on its own. matt91486 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2008 (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.