Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sos and Victoria Petrosyans


 * 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  per consensus, with particular regard to the argument raised by Phil Bridger -- Samir 08:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sos and Victoria Petrosyans

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It's a magic act with a few hits on youtube, but everything I see looks to have the same text, and this appears to be copied as well. Would require a fundamental rewrite and I'm not sure there are sources either. And a COI. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are 192 words about the subject in this local newspaper, an identical 56 words in these two magazines and a mention in the first sentence of this 337-word article in a regional newspaper, but, judging by the abstract available online, it doesn't seem that the whole article focuses on this subject. Google web and News searches in cyrillic only come up with passing mentions. I wouldn't consider this to be enough to show notability, but, as I have in recent days seen one article about a living person kept (and supported at deletion review) on the basis of 20 words in a university alumni publication, and another heading for deletion at AfD despite multiple book sources from reputable publishers being produced, including an 18-page chapter devoted to the subject, I really have no idea what the consensus is now for what constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would hesitate to gauge AfD's consensus on a few recent examples. There is a small contingent interested in keeping articles on the thinnest pretense. That shouldn't stop editors with the more longstanding view on the article from commenting to the contrary. There is a real value to WP:N. The number of active editors at any one time is finite, and as the article base grows those efforts are spread and quality declines. Sometimes a new article is worth more than a better article. But sometimes it is not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it shouldn't really make any difference to the outcome, as AfDs are supposed to be judged on the arguments, but I'll put put the word "delete" in bold, because just recently I've seen a tendency for discussions to be closed on a vote-counting basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:41, 6 November 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 01:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Procedural vote, this should not have been relisted, it should have expired as delete two weeks ago. (but also, this is not notable, so delete it for that reason too.) Miami33139 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 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.