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. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M3 festival[edit]

M3 festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: article was moved to following name after initial nom (- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

M3 Rock Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to be blatant advertising. Yes, some of the bands performing in it meet notable criteria, but the festival itself does not. See WP:N. just a little insignificant 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is an advert. It lacks independent references. Even if notable, it would need to be rewritten. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and DanielRigal. Google News Search wasn't terribly promising. tedder (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wish it was written better, but that is no reason to delete the article. Rather, it needs to be expanded with external refs. By the "ADVERT" argument, any company with a page on wikipedia could be deleted, since each page in its self is an advert.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The author of the article, User:MikeyCMS, explicitly said on his talk page:

"Hello, all! I wrote the aricle and it was not intedned to sound like a commercial or anything of the sort. I wrote it just to promo an event I had a particular intrest in and saw that no one else has wrote anything on tit, so I took it upon myself and did it. I will be happy if it goes May 31th. AS LONG AS IT STAYS AROUND FOR THE EVENT! It does not have to be on Wikipedia forever, as I did not expect that."

The article is not intended to be encyclopedic. It is an advertisement, and it does not meet notability requirements anyway. just a little insignificant 10:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I feel it is less helpful to toss around wikilaw to a new comer rather than help improve the article. What has wikipedia come to when it is is better to delete an article rather than improve upon it. Regardless of the authors intentions (and believe me, he has not helped his cause since creating the article) I hope to help improve the article and to make it more encyclopedic. The easy thing to do would to just delete it and move on, but wikipedia has a higher purpose than that, and I intend to prove it.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is better to improve an article rather than delete it, a fate which too many articles have met in the past. But I feel that applies more to articles being considered for deletion because they are not well written. In that case, the article can be saved by bringing it up to acceptable status.

In this case, however, the article is not being considered for deletion based on quality. No matter how encyclopedic it becomes, the rules still apply: The festival is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The bands that regularly play at it are its only notable aspect. just a little insignificant 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHO CARES ABOUT NOTABILITY????????????????????? I WANT TO KEEP MY PAGE UP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.194.107 (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your page. Once you hit that "Save page" button, it becomes the community's page. If you wish for stuff you write to not be mercilessly edited by others, then don't put it up in the first place. MuZemike 03:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right but I would like to add that the author is still perfectly within his rights to take his content and republish it somewhere else instead. Rather than argue for keeping it in Wikipedia, where it is clearly inappropriate, if he cares about it enough to want to keep it alive he should find a new home for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per What Wikipedia is not and the notability guidelines. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G11) as processed meat. The creator indirectly admits to spamming as per above. MuZemike 03:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom - notability is not inherited; some of the bands may be notable, but the event itself does not appear to be notable. The article is pure advertisement, as the creator of the article admits per this edit where he states that he only wants it to remain up through the event, not forever, so it's clear that it's meant as an advertisement, not as anything encyclopedic. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:36, 30 May 2009 (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.