Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modepalast

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. MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modepalast

Advertising Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If reliable references can be found, it could be a worthwhile article. While it is likely advertising, it doesn't scream POV to me, it doesn't say its the premier show, or attempt to overtly promote itself aggregiously. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed the opening times from the article, the only content that could be said to be promotional. I don't feel up to reading German at the moment but those that do may want to look at these potential sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there are a lot of international fashion events far more prominent than this one w/o articles of their own, Phil Bridger's link does lead to some sources that appear to meet significant coverage criteria (after a Babelfish translation). Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some significant coverage outside of industry announcements can be found. Without coverage from outside the industry, this doesn't seem any more notable than your average trade show. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no such requirements in the policy for reliable sources. A source can still be independent when it's from the industry the show belongs to. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my concern is with the notability of the article, not RS. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--seems notable enough, esp. after Phil Bridger's search results. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 19 April 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.