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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FESTO (Esperanto meeting)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. The deprodder added more primary sources but failed to address the central issue of the prod, which was a lack of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an annual meeting and music performance, attended by always less than 100 people? Should somehow fail ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:N that's what I meant I presume. --Pgallert (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised that this is not a good argument, it could have attracted media coverage at some point. On further thoughts, I cannot really quote a policy (save Common sense and IAR) saying this should be deleted. Just like to point out that my birthday party usually has similar dimensions, happened in different countries, and we even talk more than one language. --Pgallert (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems unlikely that this wouldn't have garnered sufficient local press through the years to pass WP:N. – EdvardMunch (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show that it actually did get such press coverage? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:36, 22 February 2010 (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.