Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambasada Gavioli
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. I would personally vote for keep but I believe this afd has been opened for enough time so I'll close it as a no consensus. The article can be improved a lot. Tone 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ambasada Gavioli
- Ambasada Gavioli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article does not cite any reliable independent sources, nor is there any indication that significant coverage in such sources exists. Unless the notability of the establishment can be verified, the article should be deleted. Skomorokh 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs a serious trimming of non-notable and/or not-referenced (such as the ideological and "Cult following") sections, but it is the most well-known place for electronic culture in the country. I added two references from major Slovene newspapers and trimmed the most over-enthusiastic sentences a bit, the rest will have to be done by people who actually know the scene. --Yerpo (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, but I think this nightclub isn't notable enough to include it into Wikipedia, anyway I don't get the point about articles on nightclubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janisterzaj (talk • contribs) 12:59, 1 June 2009
- Keep. It was one of the most important important centers of electronic music in the 1990s and early 2000s, not only in Slovenia, but also in north-east Italy and north-west Croatia. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs some cleanup. But per AGF of the comments by other editors and the indications of notability in the article I think its best to keep it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability, sources — Preceding ) 11:13, June 6, 2009
- Delete What's notable about it? --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a quick Google search definitely shows some potential notability and I'm sure that everything can be sourced. Tavix | Talk 16:46, 8 June 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.