Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short and Sweet


 * 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Short and Sweet

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

Does not seem to meet WP:N. Of the references provided 1. No longer works, 2-4. are self written and 5. is a blog and doesn't even mention them at all except in the reader comments. I can't find anything about it on Google that would confer notability. I apologise if I'm wrong. &#618;nt&#601; sv&#603;nsk''  16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Short+Sweet (may not have been found as writer was Googling Short and Sweet) is the largest ten-minute theatre festival in the world, runs across Australia and in Asia, involves thousands of artist and audience members per year and thus must remain on Google. I will edit the page to refresh links.Perhaps writer above would consider removing the deletion request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.241.226 (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion of things "remaining" on Google. This is a discussion of whether this Wikipedia article should or should not be deleted in accordance with our Deletion policy.  If you want to address that properly to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water here, show, with citations, that multiple independent published works by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy document this subject in depth.  Sources!  Sources!  Sources! Uncle G (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep the references are from multiple independent sources, and the organization is active in several major Australian cities and therefore has a national scope. It seems to me to meet the general wp:org criteria, though it is certainly in desperate need of cleanup.--Talain (talk) 03:41, 28 June 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.