Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Southportonians Association

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 of the debate was redirected to The Southport School, if any more content is needed in that article, follow the redirect back and look in the history. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Southportonians Association

nn alumni association. A couple of sentences in the school article are sufficient. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Slight Merge - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as nom. Old Boys Associations are not that notable. --Bduke 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. --Roisterer 09:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article on this alumni association. -- JJay 11:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to The Southport School. David | Talk 11:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per David. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirectßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per others --Deville (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. Let the people who edit the school article determine if this assiociation is notable enough to be mentioned there. -- ReyBrujo 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and severely cut down content - I only created this page as it seemed somebody put some work into it, but it clutters the TSS page. SM247 01:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per all above. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It has enough information for its own article. What is the difference needed in notability to get from all of this information inside a parent article to its own article? The association has significant activities and endeavours and is well established. There seems to currently be a faulty date, 2007 for inception, which needs to be fixed. Ansell 11:50, 6 May 2006 (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.