Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bats Day in the Fun Park

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 is Keep - A strong majority below want to keep it. Notability is established via a Spin reference. There should be enough of the article left after the hype is removed for a stub. The editors interested in this subject can rebuild it from there. The Transhumanist 12:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bats Day in the Fun Park[edit]

Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 6. The article had been tagged and speedied as not asserting importance per WP:CSD#A7. However, another user restored the article and providing a source from Spin magazine to help establish importance and notability through coverage in a reliable source. This restoration was again speedied through a seeming miscommunication. The deleting admin has agreed that the article be restored and there was agreement that it should be listed at afd. Hiding T 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the Spin magazine source is enough and think the article should be kept. Hiding T 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once the promotional hype is removed, there would be very little left of the article. Deb (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Deb on this. Remove all the self-promotional hype and there is very little left. One mention in a Spin magazine article is not enough to prove notability. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to prove notability, that's guidance. Just edit the article in accordance with WP:EP, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and bear in mind that stubs are okay. This isn't likely to be a permastub and can be maintained in line with policies. Hiding T 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note the event has been discussed in the Aug 25, 2003 edition of The LA Times, the August 21, 2003 edition of the OC Weekly and the August 25, 2007 edition of the San Antonio Express-News and in a September 11, 2003 article on the Fox News website. There is adequate sourcing there for an article on the festival. That this isn't it does not mean the article should be deleted. It should be improved in line with policy. Hiding T 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event has been around for several years and just gets bigger.Legotech (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple instances of media coverage.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the article is stubified, the length is no reason for deletion. Coverage in Spin and the other sources mentioned in this discussion are enough to satisfy notability and verifiability. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:RepublicanJacobite -RiverHockey (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not 100% sold on the other sources, but the Spin article is pretty convincing when it comes to asserting notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs work, but subject is apparently notable and verifiable. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]