Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Liberation Front

: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 with what seems to be consent of the nominator Tikiwont (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

=[[Billboard Liberation Front]]=

:{{la|Billboard Liberation Front}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Liberation Front}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Billboard Liberation Front}})

Lets prune the crap. I would not even care if this article didn't appear to be a one-sided strawman, but it is, so I do. Please delete and salt this page, as it appears to be mainly a media publicity page with no real content.Cymbelmineer (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment original AFD nomination was malformed, fixed it. No opinion on the page itself. Yoenit (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Which of the four excellent references did you choose not to read? They may not be well cited, which is a formatting issue, but any group that captures the attention of [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/24/LV264220.DTL The San Francisco Chronicle], [http://www.salon.com/media/col/poni/1999/05/03/billboards Salon Media Group], [http://www.adweek.com/aw/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=519133 Adweek] and [http://www.laweekly.com/content/printVersion/32004/ LA Weekly] does not have a notability issue. -- roleplayer 11:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Clearly notable, passes WP:GNG. Article needs love and expansion, not deletion. If the nominator has NPOV concerns, let him/her be reminded that we do not delete what we can improve. --Cyclopiatalk 13:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:Comment: The references and overall biographical content for this article are too short, and most of them are about one event, I'm afraid. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. Multiple quality sources over a period of years. Many more found in quick searches of Google News and Google Books. Clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't even think that the article is particularly one-sided, although any such issues can certainly be addressed through editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the Chronicle source looks particularly strong to me, and taken together I'm convinced that WP:ORG is met. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Outcome: Keep.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2010 (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.