Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ripple (newspaper)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ripple (newspaper)

The Ripple (newspaper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A couple of sources, neither of which is primarily about this student newspaper. A lot of original research. Copious vanity namechecks. And that is about it. Guy (Help!) 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Crested Penguin 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit and Merge with University of Leicester Manik Raina 03:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. Bigman17 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Paloma Walker 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge' with University of Leicester. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Newspapers are notable media outlets. Remove copious vanity namechecks if necessary. FCYTravis 22:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - clearly needs work, but most student newspapers for UK universities have seperate articles and there is some valid information here.
  • Comment - I have given the article attention, removing the staffbox (WP:NOT a masthead) and taking out the original research/poorly sourced criticisms. FCYTravis 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This but clean up to remove vanity namechecks etc. Wikify rather than DeleteGazMan7 13:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - not really appropriate to merge with University of Leicester, possibly University_of_Leicester_Students'_Union although the paper is a seperate entity.

Delete, this page serves no useful purpose except for people to boost their egos and others to criticise a perfectly good student newspaper.

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.