Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexican Perforation

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 merge to les UX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Perforation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Irrelevant non-notable organization. Damiens.rf 20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no third-party notice of this group. If kept, article should be moved to the organization's official English name. --NellieBly (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi NellieBly. The article does actually show 'third-party notice', including the version of the article at the time of your reviewing it. The third-party notice shown is NPR and The Guardian, which I imagine we would both agree are notable so I will assume you overlooked these links. LEKI (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from receiving press coverage in Paris media outlets (Le Parisien, Libération, RTL, likely others), I think that a group that was referred to by-name in both The Guardian in the UK and in a story on National Public Radio in the United States is probably notable enough that retaining a stub about the art group is acceptable. LEKI (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (recommendation change to merge per Comte0's research below 13:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)) per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by searching for the subject's name rather than an unnecessarily translated article title: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I would also add that the word "irrelevant" in the nomination is itself irrelevant to a deletion discussion, as it is meaningless without a statement of what this topic is irrelevant to. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Helpful One 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with les UX, per [1]. In this article, the quote Or, la « Mexicaine de Perforation » n'est qu'une vitrine de l'UX (Urban Experiment) translates as : However, the Mexican drilling [society] is but a front for the UX. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2011 (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.