Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vikings Groups

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Vikings Groups

The Vikings Groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability made, and while it was still under construction, when an article utterly fails to assert notability... Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - the article author has clearly marked the article as under construction (with the {{underconstruction}} template), and the last edit to this article is only 5 days prior to this nomination. - NDCompuGeek 08:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And? This doesn't make the subject matter of the article ntoable. --Nlu (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete as seemingly non-notable. /Blaxthos 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment: There has been no editing after I added {{underconstruction}}. I have no interest in this article beyond a procedural issue:
  1. Guthroth placed the following statement on the page: "PAGE IN PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION PLEASE DO NOT EDIT OR DELETE - Guthroth 10:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)"
  2. Qxz removed the statement. His edit summary was "This is a wiki; submitted content may be edited or deleted at any time. You do not "own" pages."
  3. I added {{underconstruction}} because it reflects what Guthroth was trying to say.--Kevinkor2 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If the article was about the reenactment society itself, it would warrant being kept, but we already have an article The Vikings (reenactment). There is no warrant for having a list of local groups in Wikipaedia, as they are unlikely to be notable individually. This article is merely reproducing (in an inferior form) mateiral that is already on the website cited, and that is the best place for it. The author should ensure that main article has an adequate link to that website. Having done so, there will be no useful content in the article under discussion that is worth keeping. Peterkingiron 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment: I had hoped to expand the article into a history of each of the local groups listed. Some of them have been around a long time and IMO have a history worth recording. This has not been possible to do, so please delete the article and I will write individual histories as I get the information. Guthroth 15:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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.