Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88888 Lights Out


 * 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   Keep. Sort of an unlikely seeming article I admit, but hey, we just do what the WP:RS tell us to do, and a solid consensus to keep developed as improvements were made. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

88888 Lights Out

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia si not the place to spread your campaigns Damiens .rf  17:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable environmental campaign, does not deserve an article. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable environmental campaign. Paste (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G11) for polluting Wikipedia with mountains of SPAM. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The problem I have is that the article has sources that soundly pass WP:RS. The current article is marginal and a bit junk, I agree, but it is salvageable and is certainly not speedy material.  I have never heard of it, and the only reason I can possibly think it is notable is because three different publications think so, and they are cited in this article, including http://www.indiatimes.com and http://www.thehindu.com.  Do I think turning your lights off for 8 minutes to call attention to global warming is tree hugging foolishness?  Yes.  Yes I do.  But my opinion isn't the issue, the sources are.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 19:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that I put my money where my mouth was, stubbed it, organized the citations a little better, removed the peacock terms and turned it into an article about an event that was covered by some newspapers.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 19:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources for this article only really mention that the event will happen, there's really nothing about its significance or notability. The article itself doesn't really address this either. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is very misleading. The articles that are used as sources, all 4, are completely about the event.  They are not just mentioning it in passing, nor quick blurbs saying "this will happen at $x date".  This one is after the event.  The articles are fairly in depth and only about this topic.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 22:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And that one is not used as a reference in the article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it is, under "Press". Keep in mind, I just walked in and starting fixing it.  That link was already there tho.  I am not saying this is the most important thing since the compact fluorescent bulb, I am just saying it passes general notability by the fact that several newspapers have talked about it.  The article *was* more of a mess than it is now, and now is what should be considered.  It is sourced.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarify It was a source, but not an inline citation. Now it is an inline citation.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 23:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm trusting in Dennis Brown, there probably are non-english sources, and there is no reason to exclude them. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete  or possibly merge  I see a newspaper talking about a  event in one particular building or housing complex--everything else in prospective. I consider this essentially in the nature of PR and ONEEVENT--had it been notable there would have been very much more coverage.  Trivial in the absence of better sources. Arguing from the absence of sources is difficult, but for something where there is much publicity before an event and very little afterwards, the logical conclusion is the event was not of any note. Even a good newspaper can be conned into repeating public relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) DGG (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I would much prefer this article merged and integrated into a broader article about environmentalism and environmental conservation in India. But the references are substantial and the Hindu deemed the event "a success". So based on the notability guidelines it pains me to say the event was notable as demonstrated by mainstream media coverage. Prehaps if the event is repeated it can be included in a better more comprehensive article that wouldn't be such a one event type outlier, but it happened, people covered it substantially. And I it's too soon, I think, to know if it will fade into irrelevancy, but as it stands now it was notable. It could in fact be a notable start to a more notable movement or movements.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are planning 99999 Lights Out, and I would strongly suggest that both were merged into a single article and didn't have their own articles. If someone were to suggest a proper article for this to be merged into, I would be very open minded.  My concern is that we don't lose the information, as there are some good sources here.  I fully understand why people had reservations with the article before, but a few people have put some energy into a WP:HEY job, and the information is worth keeping in one form or another.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 01:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been substantially improved since it was first nominated. It is not an advertisement and includes substantial mainstream news media coverage establishing the notability of the event and movement. It will hopefully be itnegrated into an Indian Environmentalism or similar article, I couldn't find any in existence. So deleting this article about the movement's notable beginnings would prevent its later being integrated into a broader and even more notable article about various issues and approaches on the sub-continent (the world's second most populous with over a billion people).ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow You certainly finished what I started, and did a much better job. (note: Auric did some great work, too.) I would hope those who previously wanted to delete the article would take a look and reevaluate their !votes, and hope the closing admin does the same with diffs.  Now that it is integrated into Project India, and Environmentalism, I can it it eventually either be expanded or merged to be the start of something I didn't realize we needed when this started.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the addition of sources, content and context by Dennis, Auric, and ChildofMidnight. Well done, and a nice rebuke to persons who insist that an article is "way beyond fixing". Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the place to merge  if one wanted to merge would be the sponsor,  Exnora International -- which is a very spammy article that could use some attention--and some non-spammy content. I continue not to see enough here to justify an article. This is all the more true if it is one occurrence of what is intended to be an annual event. DGG (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Merge to Exnora International. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If this was merged, this article would need to become a redirect to satisfy the GFDL. As a compromise, I think this would be ok.  Not my first choice, but a reasonable compromise.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 15:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merger. The other article is a mess. This article has demonstrated notability based on numerous media accounts including assessments of the event's outcome (I have a few more to add, but I haven't had a chance). It may be a "merge" candidate in the future. But not to that article and not now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that the other article is a complete mess. Ironic that it is in worse shape than this article was when it started AFD.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sufficient evidence of notability here for a standalone article and I see no real reason for a formal merge. Expunge it. Eusebeus (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge Evidently notable so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as is appropriately externally referenced to show notability under Wiki guidelines and shows no evidence of COI in edited body of text. DiverScout (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because it has substantial coverage which continues after the one event and looks forward to the next one. But it should be part of an article about the lights out campaigns around the world, not just discussed in an Indian context. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22lights+out++campaign%22&ie=UTF-8 Juzhong (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was a symbolic campaign and there was noticeable coverage on Indian Newspapers and television channels. From what I saw, I think it was neither limited to India, nor did it originate here. I remember watching some clippings from Australian cities too. Later, this same article should be used for similar events in future and then article name can be changed as appropriate. Right now, the article looks good with references in place.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2008 (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.