Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process-Space 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   merge to Balchik.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC) The result was   no consensus. Well, borderline...  Wifione  Message 06:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisting the debate post a request by Epeefleche. Wifione  Message 14:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Process-Space Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Exists, but lacks substantial rs coverage. Created by a 1-edit-only spa. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Tagged for absence of refs for over 4 years. Created by a 1-article-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Per Bulgarian sources. Perhaps more can be found in Bulgarian news searches.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I especially enjoyed the second ref, the main news in which is "art group invited visitors to the festival to take part in their Happy Hour project. People spelt out their favourite words using biscuits in the shape of Bulgarian letters and were photographed with their `happy word', before being allowed to munch it." If this is the most notable coverage we have ... ;) [The third ref is even worse -- the barest of passing, trivial mentions].--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you enjoyed the read! Weak keep for now, perhaps other Bulgarian sources can be found and added. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Merge to Balchik. After additional source searching, not enough coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- as is your typical approach -- for keeping an open mind, and revisiting your search and the article discussion even after you've !voted, while maintaining a flexible and thoughtful review style.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you enjoyed the read! Weak keep for now, perhaps other Bulgarian sources can be found and added. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Merge to Balchik. After additional source searching, not enough coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- as is your typical approach -- for keeping an open mind, and revisiting your search and the article discussion even after you've !voted, while maintaining a flexible and thoughtful review style.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge into the Balchik article per WP:Cities layouts. With citations, festivals, if they aren't very notable should be just added to the city where they generally take place. SarahStierch (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Given that there is (currently) no text in this article that has inline citations (per WP:CHALLENGED), and it has been challenged, are you perhaps thinking of a redirect rather than a merge in your above comment?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm thinking a simple sentence someplace in the Balchik article stating "Every year Balchik hosts the "Process-Space Festival," if a source can be found, would be a decent trade for deleting the article. But, if no reliable sources are found, then delete! The festival has been held 19 times according to this museum website, so I think it could even just use a simple citation just to show that and all would be well and good. SarahStierch (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with such a sentence being created in the target, with an inline citation to an RS. I think that could properly be done if this is closed as a redirect, which would be fine with me.  I'm just addressing the technical point of not merging challenged, unreferenced text -- but if an inline citation were created here, then a merge would be fine as well of the referenced text. It's just that, as of now, no such referenced text exists.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence now has inline citations. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of this article has been merged into the Balchik article, see "Events" section of the Balchik article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done. There is nothing left to merge (nothing inline sourced), so a redirect would work best I think.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge I agree with SarahStierch, although I'm not clear on whether a re-direct or merge is better from a technical standpoint.Grillo7 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 14:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Weak keep, with additional source at . -- Trevj (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Are you suggesting that (single source) is an RS?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. It's not ideal, hence the "weak". Does it qualify as a (rather poor) secondary source? Regarding reliability, I don't think there's any reason to believe that it's not independent and facts have been checked. -- Trevj (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (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.