Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley Dance Marathon


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Berkeley Dance Marathon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Only reliable sources are the school paper. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 09:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Remarkably little coverage, even recently . There's a world of difference between something that has "encouraged the participation of thousands of students" and something in which thousands of students actually participate.  I am encouraging thousands of Wikipedia editors to agree with me. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I applaud the students for their charity efforts. However, the lack of coverage in reliable sources indicate that this dance marathon does not meet the notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, spam, not even worth a redirect unless WP:RS can be found warranting even a half-sentence in the school's article. tedder (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A7. No indication of notability. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  00:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, but not a speedy, as it does claim some importance. Its just that there is not enough.  DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the user above noted, this post does claim importance. Editors should update with more sources though, even if local —Preceding unsigned comment added by EndedUp1974 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (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.