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.
Delete and redirect After that initial buzz around the launch, with Spike Lee on board, this festival sort of drops off the radar, doesn't it? It's already cited in the main article. I'd have no problem with editors adding more festival-related content to
Babelgum, with primary refs if nothing else for
WP:V, per
WP:PRESERVE. But the festival alone doesn't appear to meet GNG, as Kierzek more succinctly notes. Actually, some references do "work." I've easily restored the link to the Business Week/Bloomberg piece -- which appears to have been derived from a Bloomberg-issued news release? -- and the Variety news ref works just fine. But if in fact the festival is defunct, it never garnered enough independent coverage so that
WP:NOTTEMPORARY would apply.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, no redirect is necessary since the title starts with the word "Babelgum" which would be the target
Babelgum. Didn't have significant coverage when launched, and still does not. Fails
WP:GNG. --
Bejnar (
talk) 22:19, 18 December 2015 (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.
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.
Delete and redirect After that initial buzz around the launch, with Spike Lee on board, this festival sort of drops off the radar, doesn't it? It's already cited in the main article. I'd have no problem with editors adding more festival-related content to
Babelgum, with primary refs if nothing else for
WP:V, per
WP:PRESERVE. But the festival alone doesn't appear to meet GNG, as Kierzek more succinctly notes. Actually, some references do "work." I've easily restored the link to the Business Week/Bloomberg piece -- which appears to have been derived from a Bloomberg-issued news release? -- and the Variety news ref works just fine. But if in fact the festival is defunct, it never garnered enough independent coverage so that
WP:NOTTEMPORARY would apply.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, no redirect is necessary since the title starts with the word "Babelgum" which would be the target
Babelgum. Didn't have significant coverage when launched, and still does not. Fails
WP:GNG. --
Bejnar (
talk) 22:19, 18 December 2015 (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.