Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Official International Queen Fan Club


 * 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   keep. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Official International Queen Fan Club

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

Not notable. The world record assertion is not sourced (the link just leads to the Guinness records site. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - there are many ghits for this, most are reliable sources and verify the group's existence and other information.-- S R X -- Latino  Heat  13:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The club is in the Guinness Book of World Records. Here is a source, that took no more than 10 seconds to search for. 2004 Guinness Book of World Records - Google Books Bringing this to AFD without even attempting to do research is a waste of resources. SashaNein (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I also don't appreciate how the nom did not use an edit summary when putting this article up for deletion. In fact, he doesn't use edit summaries at all. He was reminded to stop this in May, but continues to use these tactics to have less editors of the subject involved in the AFD discussion. SashaNein (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. No vote from me. I don't see why a personal attack on the nom is relevant. See WP:NPA. Also, that source says the club was founded by Queen's record company, not "by Pat and Sue Johnstone" (whoever they may be) as the article states: that seems to me to cast doubt on the veracity of the article rather than supporting it. AndyJones (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack to ask the nominator to use an edit summary or to do simple research before brining an article to AFD. You can tout a policy as much as you want, but it would help to read it before accusing critique as a personal attack. SashaNein (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: percieved bad faith or deceptive nominations should be pointed out.


 * Keep. More sources would be nice, as always. But seems notable enough.Yobmod (talk) 10:17, 26 June 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.