- 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. Tone 11:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Robbos Loyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Should have been speedied, I think. I don't think it's notable and it has no sources BE——Critical__Talk 18:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fail WP:ORG. Nothing to make it notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. In fact I would have speedy-deleted it, but I thought since this AfD is here we may as well let it be discussed. However, if another admin decides to go ahead with speedy deletion I won't object at all. (Incidentally, the speedy deletion tag was removed by an account with no edits other than to this article. The account was created shortly after the article's creator was indef-blocked under the username policy.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the speedy was removed and that's why I put it here. I don't know what else to do once the speedy is removed. BE——Critical__Talk 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You did the right then by bringing it here rather than trying to place a PROD tag on it, as since the speedy tag was removed, there was a good chance the PROD tag would have been removed also. Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for explaining :D BE——Critical__Talk 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You did the right then by bringing it here rather than trying to place a PROD tag on it, as since the speedy tag was removed, there was a good chance the PROD tag would have been removed also. Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the speedy was removed and that's why I put it here. I don't know what else to do once the speedy is removed. BE——Critical__Talk 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems close to a coatrack designed to denigrate the club and its supporters. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Completely non-notable organisation written in an non-encyclopaedic style. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - utter tosh, totally non-notable and completely unencylopaedic. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While they may not represent all Hearts fans they certainly do represent a number of them, deleting the account would only serve to further the aims of those who dont like this group. there is nothing controversial posted so imo should be allowed to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmfc 1874 01 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We're not deleting it because we don't like it, we are deleting it because it fails these guidelines - WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:N, WP:NPOV and possibly WP:V. Whose Your Guy (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - showing what some hearts fans beleive in! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.18.169 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC) — 195.173.18.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.