Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Global Rhythm Dance Studio

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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Global Rhythm Dance Studio

Clear advertising Mariano(t/c) 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_Latin_Dance_Studio and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Murray_dance_studio are not marked for deletion, neither should this article. If there are ways to edit or delete from other pages to make it similar to the aforementioned articles, please advise and it will be done. Madangry
• Delete as nonnotable, and the others are on their way to deletion as well. mikka (t) 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the changed version shows a certain uniqueness ansd notability. mikka (t) 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think I am getting the hang of adding articles now. Based on my initial boo boo and writing this article COMPLETELY incorrectly. Thank you for nominating a Keep for me. (Nominating? You can tell I'm green to this site... Madangry 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I looked whether these two references are suitable for deletion, and I find that their articles sufficiently demonstrate the prominence of these two studios, therefore they were "on their way", but did not "reach it". mikka (t) 01:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete spam _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • I apologize. I'm quite new to this website. see edited text and please advise. Thanks!!Madangry 01:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an ad. -R. fiend 21:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I just went over this stuff with mikkalai.....but if you think it STILL looks like an ad....suggestions to make it as unlike an ad as possible would be great as I think if Arthut Murrays page will be kept here this one should as well.Madangry 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam. incog 04:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• 'whatever' I'm over it. Delete this puppy. I still hold my ground and say that if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_Latin_Dance_Studio is not marked for deletion as an ad for a studio, neither should this article. In that case the whole Dance Studios category should be deleted then as well due to the fact that this category was the only reason I added this article in the first place. For some reason this one article is being branded as an ad while the other studios are not. Well, consensus rules then. SO Delete it. No worries. Madangry 20:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• It would be unfair to delete this listing if The other dance studios and Dance groups and organizations are not. Maybe this listing should go to cleanup?
  • the question is why this studio is better than a Pizza Hut right beside it? If you can demonstrate the notability of the studio, then the vote will change. Did the studio owners/instructors win major national dance competitions? Was the studio covered in major press? I suggest other voters hint to other possivilitis to improve the article. Right now it reads as an advert. Wikipedia in a free encyclopedia, not a free promoter. mikka (t) 01:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The difference is that Pizza Hut has resturants and is known all over the world. That is what notability means. This Studio hasn't proved to be notable, neither because of its instructors nor its students. Mariano(t/c) 07:45, 27 January 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.