Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony Cultural 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   delete. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Symphony Cultural Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article was deleted as a result of a PROD, the reason given being "Non notable festival". (At that time the article had the title Symphony - Cultural Festival (KJSCE)). I restored the article in response to a request on my talk page, in order for the person making the request to "establish a better article for my college festival". However, the editor has not edited the article since then, and there is still no evidence of notability. In most cases a college festival is of interest to people connected with the college, but not to outsiders, and no evidence has been given to indicate that this case is an exception. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nominator. Why so serious?  Talk to me 14:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think we even have an article on the college let alone the school of engineering to even propose a merge.Thisbites (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete most school events are non-notable and nothing in the article suggests this is any exception. Indeed, there's no actual content at all. JamesBWatson, it may have been better to have the author produce some sources or an outline of what the article might look like rather than blindly restoring it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tended in the past to be fairly generous in allowing late challenges to PRODs, restoring articles fairly freely. However, I have been reconsidering this matter, and I think in future I will be more strict about the procedure, and in cases which might be considered doubtful refer users to Requests for undeletion instead. As for "there's no actual content at all", there was some content at the time of deletion and undeletion which has since been removed. Certainly if the article had been as minimal as it is now I wouldn't have even considered undeleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, doesn't seem very notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:36, 2 February 2011 (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.