Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival (with bubbles)

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 Speedy delete as G1 and A7. Guy 10:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Festival (with bubbles)

I have no idea what event this is describing, but it appears to be some local school event and surely is not notable. Calliopejen 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nom, until the author can explain the subject better in a total re-write. Cbrown1023 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with some regret. Should be sent to WP:BJAODN. --Masamage 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --violates WP:NFT OfficeGirl 03:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient context, no sources, not enough information to be able to verify it. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Something made up at break one day. I can't find the claimed sountrack at AllMusic or Amazon. -- Mikeblas 04:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (without bubbles). Arbusto 04:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 07:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete Festival is a well-documented festival that was not made up in one day. It involved months of preparation. Please read the entry before making your evaluations. Thx. Festwoman 11:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete!!! [Duplicate vote removed]I would like to begin my comment by requesting a 30 day period during which the article may be re-written, as suggested by Cbrown1023. This article was created as a skeleton to be fleshed out by the greater Festival community. It has not yet exited for four hours and yet there are already calls for its deletion. Such calls appear to be contrary to the community spirit of the Wikipedia. If the reason for this suggestion is that the Wikipedia community is concerned about respectability in the greater community, I appreciate this concern. However I think that allowing enough time for a communal creation of an article is well within the spirit of the project. If, after 30 days, enough members of the Festival community have not deemed it appropriate or worthwhile to commit enough time to Wikipedia to flesh out the entry enough to address the criticisms below, then I agree it should be deleted.

Beyond this request, I will address the specific reasons for recommending deletion. Cbrown1023’s request for a total-rewrite in which the author can explain the subject better is well received. The idea was for one participant to provide the skeleton of the article such that various other participants could more readily add to the substance of the article and clarify it. However, I respect the need to put a limit on such efforts, given the prevalence of lazy communities that start projects on the Wikipedia and are not committed to maintaining them. This is why I recommend the 30 day moratorium on the discussion about whether or not the article should be deleted. If after 30 days the article is not fleshed out, then I too will recommend deletion. With regard to Masamage’s request to send the article to WP:BJAODN, this, again, might seem appropriate to those who do not, for obvious reasons, understand the article, but again I urge a 30 day period during which the article may be fleshed out by the entire Festival community. This article was created in order that those who participated would have an easier time adding content. Although the wiki format is easy to use, if there is an article already created then it is easier to edit. OfficeGirl suggests what may seem like the most appropriate critique of the article with the suggestion that it violates WP:NFT. I was concerned about this particular guideline myself while creating the article and this is why I created the history sub-heading. I do not think that Festival is a violation of these guidelines, and I know several other Festival participants who have read the guidelines themselves and still agree. Furthermore, because I did not want to waste the time of the Wikipedia community, I requested assurance of those Festival participants in the creation of the article prior to their participation in the creation of this article. I have been assured by several participants that, if the article itself were created, they would be happy to add content in order to clarify it. For this reason I request a 30 day period during which Festival participants are allowed to contribute to the article prior to its consideration for deletion. There were several complaints about the lack of sources. I feel very redundant at this point in my request, but I think it best to allow a 30 period in order to list the sources. This is, perhaps, the most tedious task, although one of the more important, or any wikipedian and at times takes more than six hours to perform if it is do be done correctly. Having just read the the wikipedia guidline on verifiability I can assure the Wikipedia editors, whose commitment to the integrity of this project is evident by the number who have turned out to pass judgment on this single article, that two legitimate sources have published articles about Festival and one is in the works, and that if the 30 day wait period is suggested that these publications will be linked to the website. We will verify it, although we do appreciatability Metropolitan90’s link to the page with the verifiability criteria. The fact that Mikeblas cannot find the soundtrack on Allmusic or Amazon seems entirely irrelevant, and the suggestion that this is “Something made up at break one day” is both insulting and unsupported. I take great offense that the conclusions jumped to by this particular Wikipedia-editor. I will assume for the time being that they have been reached by the lack of respect for the wikipedia project that Mikeblas has encountered in the past and a general embitterment to those whose actions undermine the integrity of the project. Consequently I will not make further comment on this ill founded suggestion to delete the article. • I cannot understand Arbusto’s request to delete (without bubbles) unless it is just a suggestion in an overall vote. If so, the vote is respected. If ‘(without bubbles)’ is supposed to provide some reason for this vote, I am left in a state this perplexing by another’s reasoning since I stopped teaching introductory logic courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Festwoman (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Delete per G1. This article is utter nonsense. --Dennisthe2 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G1. --Richmeister 10:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment AfD lasts about a week, which should be more than enough time to improve any article if needed. Vizjim 10:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• *Speedy delete per CSD G1. Vizjim 10:22, 3 November 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.