Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awesome Festival

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 nominator withdrawal.[1] (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Festival

This looks like spam to me, just a link to to a web page, but it has been turned down for speedy deletion. I admittedly don't come from Perth, Western Australia, but I have never heard of it and I doubt that it is notable. Grahame (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you...it's awesome ? I can see news articles on the festival incidental, a bit advertorial, and about 1/2 a dozen others. A bit of government sponsorship, RealTime issue #59 Feb-March 2004 pg. 28, newscorp article Oct 2007 - looks to have sufficient sources to be both awesome and notable - Peripitus (Talk) 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the combination of the newscorp article and the EPRA grant are only just enough to sway me in favour of keeping it. -- Mark Chovain 08:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: A mention in the local paper doesn't prove notability. If there are so many sources, please put them in the article, where there are currently none. A minor local activity with unproven notability does not deserve a Wiki article.--Lester 09:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about deserving or not - just whether we can write a verifiable and neutral article. Personally I don't care to write much about the subject but in addition to the links I've given I can see, The Australian, News Corp, Nov 21st 2003, p.06, Victoria Laurie - an article on the festival; The Perth Sunday Times, Nov 16th 2003 - extensive piece on one of the performers with commentary on the festival, The Perth Sunday Times, Aug 10th 2003, ANNIKA PRIEST - another article on the festival. This all in a minute or so of looking....Looks to be noted by independent reliable sources, which is the fundamental ground upon which all of our notability requirements are built - Peripitus (Talk) 11:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I think the article should still be deleted. It could have got coverage on the front page of the New York Times, but we can only go by what has been presented in the article. The article carries no reliable references. Some references have been provided by user:Peripitus (above). Most from local community papers. The biggest online reference is from NewsCorp's Perth Now. On closer inspection, the article is not in the general news section, but is in the Entertainment > What's On section as a coming event. One thing that bothers me is that there is no major coverage of this "festival", apart from the "what's on" section. There are no general articles about the event, or about how it fits into Perth culture. Apart from "coming events" and "what's on", this lack of general coverage makes me think the event is very minor, and possibly fading away. I'm not sure if a mention in the weekend events in the entertainment guide of Perth Now should automatically be justification for a Wikipedia article. Besides, whoever wrote the article has included virtually no information, not one reliable reference, and nothing that puts the event into context (eg, how big is it in the scheme of things?). We need this to justify keeping the article, and it hasn't been provided.--Lester 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's doubtful. Compare the Hyper festival to the Awesome festival. Community outreach program appears to be developing as well. Ottre (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed my vote) - there has been significant work done on the article, and new references added since my last comments, so I change my vote to keep.--Lester 03:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improved version establishes notability per multiple independent mentions.--Bsnowball (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a reasonable start on a notable-enough topic to me. Jgm (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination—enough work has been done on it to suggest at least marginal notability.--Grahame (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2008 (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.