Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spike Surplus Scheme

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 Redirect. Although there are more opinions leaning toward deletion, I don't see the harm in keeping this as a search term. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Surplus Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable charitable organisation, of seemingly limited influence. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN charitable organisation, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've removed a large proportion of the article's text as it appeared to be directly copied from this page possibly in violation of copyright. Guest9999 (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable organisation. JIP | Talk 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Peckham. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2008 (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.