Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citymoves dance agency


 * 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. not sure why it was relisted though JForget  22:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Citymoves dance agency

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non notable dance studio Wuh  Wuz  Dat  18:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

*Deletion not supported: Citymoves is a major player in the contemporary dance scene in scotland, it is not just a a dance studi, but one of three regional/nationsl dance agencies in Scotland, which produces new work and supports new choreographic development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddybunting (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — Teddybunting (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Deletion Supported - It's one of a large number of dance studios in Scotland, and to be fair, I can't find anything to suggest it has done anything of notability to warrant an entry here. It's a council funded dance studio, big whoop. Doesn't mean it should be listed here :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks substantial third party coverage. ~YellowFives 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete; citymoves as a regional agency is of national important to dance / arts in Scotland, I have added references. Jennykphillips (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Both Teddybunting, and Jennykphillips, have been blocked for vote stacking - CU has confirmed that they are socks of each other. Their votes accordingly, have been struck. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Talullah77 has also been struck from the vote, per WP:DUCK, as a sock of Teddybunting and Jennykphillips. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak  (so far...) Keep The reference list looks reasonable. It's funded by the Scottish Arts Council, which means the higher (national) levels of arts management have looked at it carefully and decided it's worth dishing out money to. (For the benefit of Americans who probably don't have such a thing, see http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/1/aboutus/whoweare.aspx ) This is the organisation that took over the Scottish arts when the former UK Arts Council was split. While I am no fan of contemporary dance (give me a ceilidh...), it is a field that is of artistic importance. The festival contains names I recognise - and that's saying something... The weakness of the Keep is down to the rather brochure like style of the writing. Slightly over promotional without actually triggering my spam reflexes. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as notable in dance, but article needs improvement.Talullah77 (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kill: Non-notable. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article is on the edge of notability, but Teddybunting's self-promotion and disruption make me choose deletion. Ggreer (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Most of the references are from the agency or the SAC - given that the SAC funds them, such references can hardly be said to pass WP:GNG. WP:ORG's tests are failed here, since it doesn't have a national scope nor pass the abovementioned RS requirements, which leaves smacking with the hammer as the only commonsense option here. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (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.