Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VestiVille

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. That something was a scam does not automatically deny it notability. Sources have been provided suggesting the subject meets WP:GNG, and have not been convincingly refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VestiVille

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The “festival” was simply a scam. It was nowhere near the level of Fyre Festival though any music event that has one little managerial issue is now lazily compared to Fyre. Other than that, this is completely unnotable. Trillfendi (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily notable. Nom is right as regards it being lazily described as like Fyre and getting cheap coverage, but the fact remains that it does have that coverage. NME, IQ, bbc just for a few. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 3 sentences for God’s sake. There is no sustained notability of it. It fails NEVENT. Nothing about this article is encyclopedic nor valuable to the encyclopedia. Trillfendi (talk)

Those are completely different delete grounds than you originally proposed - I'll have a look on the NEVENT now, length isn't grounds for delete - there's loads of sourcing, and you can easily expand it. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Length had nothing to do with deletion, it’s clearly a statement of how poor the article is and the fact that it was so uneventful that only 3 sentences could be formed about it (a lot of the artists in the so-called “lineup” weren’t even verifiable), one of them being that it was “Fyre 2.0”.Trillfendi (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am disinclined to say NEVENT disqualifies it. Obviously there was an immediate rush of sources. Then there was about a month's pause, and various comparison re-considerations/compare & contrasts started coming out: the IQ source above, france inter, Pollstar (even discounting the various direct/indirect quoted 3rd party analysis), given that's within a week, that's about as broad a temporal coverage as we can get at this point. We have international coverage, thus showing depth, breadth and reasonable duration. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it hasn’t been reported on in a month.... Trillfendi (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the IQ source was written on the 1st of August, only 4 days ago? Nosebagbear (talk)

Wow, an article about Woodstock 50 and a bunch of other festivals. Groundbreaking. Trillfendi (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing insight and dramatic analysis aren't needed Nosebagbear (talk)

Delete a fesitival that didnt happen needs really good coverage to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's an event whether the event is "VestiVille" or "Cancellation of VestiVille" - in lieu of there being an NFESTIVAL, there aren't any different criteria for these two. The same level of coverage is needed Nosebagbear (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a scam/or getting canceled does not strip it of notability, it may actually give it more publicity (read: substantial coverage) than if it were a real event/or if it held. It's not even clear that it was a scam (BBC says it was canceled "because of safety issues") but the nom implied that it was a scam with apparent certainty but not a single evidence. But what's more important is that there are multiple reliable sources giving it in depth coverage [1], [2], [3]. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn’t a scam then why were they using false advertisement of Cardi B voice used in the “promo” video (sound familiar) if she was really on the lineup? Oh but she couldn’t have been anyway because she was touring festivals in England at that time then was forced to pull out of those shows to recover from botched surgery. Red flag number one. But I’m just making shit up right? It’s not like no one could see this play out in real time. A “festival” with little to no information about itself and no infrastructure yet claiming it’s booking big names is called fraud. The “coverage” you offer isn’t “in depth” on anything; they’re only more Fyre Festival comparisons and a bunch of tweets! MILL. The festival is not going to get in depth coverage from something like Vanity Fair or the New York Times because WP:LASTING. Trillfendi (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am afraid, I have no idea who "Cardi B" is; not least what he does and I have no interest to know. I am not in the position to judge "scamness" of the event. What I know is the city's mayor, through the BBC said the event was canceled "because of safety issues." Neither the Mayor nor the BBC and not even Wikipedia called the event a scam.

2. My 3 sources are well known media companies, I did not link to any Tweet. I began to wonder whether you really read my sources or you're confusing them with a tweet elsewhere.

3. Illegality of event/action does not strip it of notability in anyway. I have said this and I am repeating it. Otherwise, we would not have articles on murder and scam. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She’s only a Grammy-winning artist with 3 number one hits who the festival “claimed” was the headliner to lure their victims to the middle of nowhere with no intention of giving them a real show (ah, that’s called a scam) due to their obvious entire lack of planning to actually do a festival and refuse to give refunds. Now clearly I said the articles given relied on some embedded tweets to give accounts of the day. That’s not in depth whatsoever. It’s no more than what entertainment news sites like do everyday for celebrity gossip. The 5 sentences of this article don’t go “in depth” about it either. The reality is the event (or lack thereof) was does meet notability to have a Wikipedia article about it. The difference between this and the cancelled Woodstock 50 is breadth and quality of the coverage. And what do we have here? That Buzzfeed atrocity can’t even be called journalism. It’s a listacle of memes and tweets ffs. Trillfendi (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a lot of sources in French, including some from particularly reliable outlets such as Le Soir (already used in the article), the RTBF [4] and France Inter [5] (note that the latter was published a full month after the event so there's a hint that coverage is lasting). There's also a fairly detailed report published 10 days after the fact that includes info about the aftermath (including the arrest and release of two organizers, possible reimbursements, and so on) and would be an excellent source to expand the article.[6]. There's also coverage in Flemish including a "how did it all go wrong" analysis, written two weeks after the event, in the very reliable NRC Handelsblad. Pichpich (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2019 (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.