Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Arts Network


 * 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 Keep Eluchil404 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sonic Arts Network
Delete as this is advertisement. Gay Cdn 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove final section (headed Network) as this is the advert and the rest of the article justifies itself without it. Karlheinz Stockhausen is the patron. Doesn't appear to be copyvio. If BBC Radio is spending several hours per year broadcasting your events to the nation, I would say you make it. Ac@osr 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is this a problem? I just attended the Manchester Expo, had a piece performed, and delivered a paper.  There was nothing remotely commercial about the event, which was participated in by dozens of artists, and had many venues, well-attended.  Is there something objectionable I'm not getting?  --Josephbyrd 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the article (as it was), did read as if it was directly from the Sonic Arts Network's website (even though it may not have been). Wikipedia aims to write quality, referenced, and neutral articles about all its subjects - even if not everything on Wikipedia is currently so. Cormaggio @ 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Giving details of how to obtain membership and the benefits thereof constitutes an advertisement. Apart from that section at the end, the article is fine. Ac@osr 09:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - simply needs cleaning up, which I'm about to do now :-) Cormaggio @ 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of what could be seen as cruft/advertisment - now it just needs to be referenced and possibly slightly re-written in parts. Cormaggio @ 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep still needs cleanup but what doesn't ? Doesn't appear to be vanispamcruftisement, just poorly phrased. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 12 July 2006 (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.