Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Many


 * 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 and redirect . The content appears to have been merged previously to Diefenbaker Management Area so that will be the redirect target. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  10:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We Are Many

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

This article is about an event that is not notable, as described in Notability (news events). There is no indication that this event will return in the future. Drm310 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup you're right... the article states in a quotation even...pilot project model for mid sized cities. It would be nice if the festival returned and gained impetus as it had a good aim.  It may be a better idea to delete the stub after the non returned future event instead of using a crystal ball to delete the festival ahead of the  article, but C'est la vie .  Using the local event notability will work for a few more months, but can a deleted wikipedia article be resurrected from the ashes to commemorate the ensuing festivals in other cities, therefore not local, which are planned, and which have Hunt Alternatives Fund $40,000 matching grant for the 2008, as well as many other sponsors, and have been fund raising in several cities after the Saskatoon festival to promote 2009 festivals.  It may or may not be premature to delete the articles, the WAM promoters seem to think they will be sustained. It would be nice to have a crystal ball.SriMesh |  talk  05:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable festival. This is just like many other festivals worldwide that are not notable enough for their own article. Our local one has been running for several years and only gets a passing mention in the article on the suburb, which is just fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Saskatoon. Content makes sense there and a redirect to it may be useful to readers. Double Blue  (Talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. It'd be nice to add the content to Diefenbaker Management Area, which is sorely lacking info as well.  Double Blue  (Talk) 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very borderline notability at present; I think the single secondary source used would support a merge as proposed above, but there's not enough there to sustain an independent article. If the festival takes off and becomes the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage, then an article could be created in the future. EyeSerene talk 20:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The content has been added to Diefenbaker Management Area, good idea. SriMesh | talk  05:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and re-direct: For now it can be merged and the page re-directed. But if it is continues each year, it can be broken off into an article of its own.  Mr. C.C. (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (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.