Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UP Engineering Radio Guild

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 delete. If somebody knows of a good target, you're free to go ahead and recreate this as a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UP Engineering Radio Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The engineering radio guild of a university created four years ago by a WP:SPA that has developed no references since its creation and which remains without independent notability. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KDS4444 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Am now voting to Redirect, as interest in the nomination has been zero. KDS4444 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where? I can guess based on the article content, but it's still necessary to explicitly specify the target in your nomination. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is minimally sourced to its own primary source content about itself rather than to reliable source coverage, contains a lot of completely unsourced insider baseball cruft, and has no strong claim of notability (which is not the same thing as mere existence). I don't see it as warranting a redirect, as it's not a particularly likely topic of reader interest or a particularly likely search term in its own right — nobody outside of its own past and present membership is likely to ever be looking for this, and it can keep its own website for that purpose rather than taking advantage of us. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2016 (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.