This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 July 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. two deletes and a merge over two extensions is not a solid consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 08:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Competition 10[edit]

Promotional material for a minor contest. Sure, it has an official site, a Twitter page, a blog, the requisite press releases - but independent coverage in reliable sources appears wholly lacking. Dumitru Popescu may also merit deletion. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of references

This is a list of articles in the media about Competition 10:

http://zoom.jurnalul.ro/stire-stiri/info-zoom-318820.html

http://www.calificativ.ro/Competitia_Zece___10_000_Euro_pentru_un_avion_de_hartie-a21837.html

http://www.stiri.descopera.org/arca-lanseaza-competitia-zece/

Dragos muresan (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The second link is to a press release hosted at an educational forum - not an independent source; the third is to a self-published site with no editorial control over content. The first link is a paragraph in an actual newspaper, but a) it's in one of those non-news, low-content "lifestyle supplement" sections; b) it's more or less a puff piece drawing on their press release and linking to their official site, forum and blog; c) we really don't yet have the "multiple independent sources" indicated by WP:GNG, nor are we likely to. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain something to me

Biruitorul, I have here a small list of articles that do not have any references at all and also do not appear in any independent newspaper.

I belive you created these articles. Do they meet the criteria proposed by WP:GNG ? Why don't you delete those as well?

Dragos muresan (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popa's biography is sourced to his résumé. The others are indeed unreferenced (I wrote them long ago), but their notability is immediately apparent - two archbishops and two big-city mayors. And, were I to improve those articles, I'm certain I could find copious references in newspapers and history books. No comparison to a competition that has, in fact, garnered precious little attention in reliable independent sources, despite its occurring in 2009, when everything that is something is easily accessed through Google. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing

Biruitorul, I don't understand why you are so upset against this article. First you tagged it for quick deletion, and now this. Sure, you are correct, it is a minor competition, it hasn't appeared on the BBC, it's not the XPrize, but on the other hand it doesn't want to be. It's aimed at children. It is public, it appeared on several sites, televisions will come at the event. Sure, it has little content, but as things progress and it gains more publicity, content will be added.

Dragos muresan (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "upset" by the article - I merely want it deleted for failing to conform to policy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per Biruitorul's analysis of given sources. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an acceptable Keep argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [[[ARCASPACE]]. Insufficient notability for independent article, but can be mentioned in the main space agency article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.