Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where do you want to go today?


 * 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   speedy keep. There is a clear consensus to keep this article and WP:SNOW is applicable. (non-admin closure) Ruslik (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do you want to go today?

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

Delete article on forgettable ad campaign. The article itself says response was "lukewarm." __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the fact that with today's perspective this may be considered by some 'forgettable' is not a reason for deletion. At the time it was a milestone both in Microsoft's development and in the history of computer promotion. Further, the page has the reliable and independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Contains multiple sources, notability is not temporary. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- clearly notableJJJ999 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Notability is permanent and is established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources for what was Microsoft's groundbreaking first international image campaign. Notability has nothing to do with fame or how many people remember something or if the response was lukewarm. There is no policy reason offered nor any policy justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While Notability addresses articles on companies and entertainment, it is silent regarding advertising campaigns. Several mentions in a trade publication may prompt a presumption of notability, but are not a guarantee. "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion."
 * Although I still think the article is about a piece of media ephemera, expensive and "groundbreaking" though it may have been, prompt responses here show a building consensus to keep, which I won't argue with. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - is this a withdrawal of the nomination? TerriersFan (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Give it some time for the ones who may not be watching right now to chime in. It may be worth a footnote in Microsoft's history, but I don't think every advertising jingle merits an article. __Just plain Bill (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Far from being a 'footnote' it is a campaign that resonated in future years not only in computing but in many other spheres.. TerriersFan (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you go looking, you can find places where this buzz-phrase got recycled. And yet, it comes nowhere near the wide notability of "Where's the beef?" The question remains: where to draw the line between a notable item and a foot-notable one? I'm still willing to call this one a footnote. Carry on, __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.   --  TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  00:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep So what if it's forgettable? Offending Angels is apparently rather forgettable (given that it earned tons of horrid reviews and under £100 at the box office), but it's notable.  Likewise, this has enough sources to prove notability, whether forgettable or not.  Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple, independent and reliable sources. A milestone in the history of computer advertising. And why does a campaign being received as "lukewarm" make it worthy of deletion? Many miserable campaigns are notable, and many successes are definitely not. Arsenikk (talk)  09:12, 16 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.