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. There isn't much in the article that could be merged into an article on the university without giving undue weight to the debate society. It seems clear that no one favours the main text standing alone. Therefore, redirect without a merge. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston University Debate Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated for AfD by ECKnibbs. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 19:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I created this article. I didn't write it myself, I copied the entire thing from the team's entry on the league wiki. If you guys want to delete it, I guess there's no way to stop you, but it's not as if the article is profane or offensive, and there is still plenty of information within it. Maybe it deserves a thorough cleanup, but I don't know about deletion.
• Smerge into Boston University and redirect. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - don't seem notable enough to have their complete own article. Jayden54 21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm the one who nominated this article for deletion. I thought that it was a bit of a vanity page, and, as the poster says above, that it wasn't notable enough to have its own article. At first I thought that it should be deleted, but that was before I knew merging was an option. So I vote for merge, I suppose. ECKnibbs 03:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into Boston University.-- danntm ^T _C 04:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete About the only thing that can be merged into the Boston University article is the intro, the rest seems to be uncited original research. I say this as an Alumni (ENG'91). We could have a debate over it though :) --Eqdoktor 18:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Eqdoktor. - Aagtbdfoua 14:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. Not notable enough, but we can salvage a bit and put it in the main article. --Wizardman 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to me like a lot of OR and a lot of vanity. --Beaker342 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.