Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boryeong Mud Festival


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Boryeong Mud Festival

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Might not be notable. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep. I'm really on the fence here because, on one hand, it seems to violate WP:ADVERT. The article is horribly written, not wiki-fied, and includes an advert at the bottom. I couldn't even figure out where the festival was held based on the article but had to go to the festival page to find out it's in South Korea. On the other hand, it does seem to pass notability based on G-hits and it seems like something is worth salvaging based on that. Requires extreme cleanup though. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but Cleanup. Agreed with Redfarmer, this does seem to violate WP:ADVERT. The article needs to be fixed up significantly (i.e. wikified), but it does seem to be notable enough to be an article. Hello32020 (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: After cleaning up the article a little myself, deleting the phone number, and talking to the user on his talk page, I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. The user provided this link to a Time magazine article about the festival if there is still any doubt as to its notability. -- Redfarmer (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a festival that attracts 1.5 million visitors is clearly notable, and User:Redfarmer has cleaned up the tone of the article. --Stormie (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - plainly notable as a festival. However, I have removed further chunks that are not directly related to the festival. BlueValour (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nom withdrawn, clearly notable now, and nice referencing work!--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)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.