Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The hawk eye (newspaper)


 * 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   redirect to Hanover High School (Mechanicsville, Virginia). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The hawk eye (newspaper)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable high school newspaper.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  --  Eagles   24/7   (C)  20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Sea photo Talk  04:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge content into Hanover High School (Mechanicsville, Virginia) if it isn't there already. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 07:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hanover High School (Mechanicsville, Virginia). I have merged content into the target so outright deletion would breach our GFDL obligations. There are, though, alternative courses of action, if converting to redirect is considered objectionable such as moving the article to a sub-page of the talk page of the target and deleting the resulting redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A merge/redirect does seem like a sensible option, the loaded gun threat of GFDL breaking aside. In point of fact merging an article while a discussion is underway is generally considered an attempted fait accompli. If you were really that worried about it a history merge is the way to go as opposed to trying to force your preffered result with a pre-emptive merger. And of course if a consensus to delete emerges the merger can simply be undone, so it's an empty threat anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - it was not a threat; it was just a statement. I don't have a preferred result; frankly I really couldn't care less what happens to such an inconsequential page. All that I'm doing is making the point that GFDL needs to be looked after, whether by a redirect or the alternative means I suggested, or by a history merge (as you properly suggested) doesn't matter. I would make the point in passing that WP:BEFORE encourages merging to be actively considered before proposing deletion and there is no evidence that nominator has addressed this. Whatever happens as a result of this AfD then content can be subsequently merged/re-added as a simple editorial action. In truth, I find it hard to get very excited either way. TerriersFan (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.