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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Fringe

[edit]

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

Declaration of interest: I am a director (i.e. board member) of another venue at the Edinburgh Fringe.--ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough coverage to establish notability ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Free Fringe has become a well-known part of the Edinburgh Fringe, and a quick GNews archive search for Edinburgh "Free Fringe" shows plenty of coverage. I would be quite happy for all the major venues at the Edinburgh Fringe to have articles, (and even long-running minor venues in a list article). Suggest WP:BFAQ#COMPANY if you think your own venue deserves an article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That sounds rather like an argument supporting a merge into Edinburgh Fringe, rather than keeping this one as a separate article. Do you think we really need separate articles for 'the event itself' and 'the group promoting it'? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Free Fringe is not the group that promotes the Edinburgh Fringe (that's the Festival Fringe Society), it is one of several organisations that hosts a lot of events within the Fringe. The Edinburgh Fringe is a vast festival and I doubt very much you could put all the encyclopaedic information about every notable venue into one page. It's quite normal for highly notable subjects to have sub-pages covering different areas of the subject - no-one, for instance, suggests merging BBC One into BBC. There are some arguments for a merge (possibly merging all the different free fringes together), but that's something that should go into a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any significant coverage other than the one item already referenced. I think hardly any of the 100+ venues deserve articles, and I don't think that the venues I run meet WP's notability criterion: I was simply declaring an interest in order to be open about it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search on GNews finds a lot of articles referencing the Free Fringe (that's excluding all the non-Edinburgh things called free fringes), but the big ones I found are this article from BBC News about an award given to the founder, this article in the Scotsman covering all the free fringes, a fair amount of attention in this article in The Times, numerous mentions in other national newspapers and many Free Fringe-Specific articles in publications that cover the Edinburgh Fringe. There might be a case for putting all the different free fringes (PBH, Laughing Horse and Forest) into one article, or even merge all the major venue chains into once article, but that's for a merge discussion, not this one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the material discussed by Chris above seems sufficient to keep the article; the advisability of a merge should be discussed atthe talk p. of the main article, since, as he says, it will apply to more than this one group. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 31 October 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.