Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Royal Rangers

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was turn over old article to WP:CP". A new stub has been rewritten, which seems to be acceptable, judging by the lack of discussion. Joyous 02:09, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Rangers

This is pretty obviously an ad, but a Google on "Royal Rangers" does turn up quite a bit of content. Still, it's an ad. --Kelly Martin 01:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, reads like a promo, doesn't establish notability. Wyss 01:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. Megan1967 02:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - But NPOV. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 10:41, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Article content shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 23:34, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• As per Deletion policy (that some people could do with reading), keep and clean-up. Dan100 12:01, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Indeed, people should re-read it to see that advertising is a grounds for deletion. Geogre 13:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing here a little cleanup wouldn't fix. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually it turns out there is something that cleanup won't fix. It's a big copyvio from the site it references. However I've written a Temp, so delete the copyvio and then keep. DJ Clayworth 02:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.