Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danza contemporanea de cuba


 * 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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Danza contemporanea de cuba

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

formerly created Danza Contemporanea de Cuba (note capitalization) and the latter was prodded by. Since Amagon rosh recreated the page with a similar name, this should be considered a prod dispute. Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of coverage in reliable sources at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Danza+Contempor%C3%A1nea+de+Cuba%22&ie=UTF-8 --Eastmain (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Look at the article: it talks about a person, and yet the title is about a company.  The only thing about the company is that it used to be called this and is now called that.  Well, that's not an article.  So, could someone write an article about this dance troupe?  Possibly.  Is this article a keep?  No.  Can someone build from this?  No.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Marginal Keep Plenty of what look to be valid mainstream media articles to make it notable (altho in Spanish), and 3rd party references provided. The body of the article is horrible, it needs to be rewritten by a knowledgable editor (it makes the article sound like it's about Ramiro Guerra, but if you read further in, you'll see it's not).  If I were familiar with Cuban dance, I'd fix it myself. I'll assume good faith here.  Poor writing is not a criterion for deletion.  Let's make this a stub and let editors build on it.  Yes, I think someone can build from this. Plvekamp (talk) 04:38, 23 April 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.