Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Tomorrow's Parties (music 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 keep. WP:SNOW close (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Tomorrow's Parties (music festival)[edit]

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

article totally devoid of independent third party sources about a music festival of dubious notability Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Village Voice reference in the article does say "Evolving from the decade-old U.K. event, ATP is a festival like no other". But I agree the article probably needs more to confirm notability. It is a firm part of the musical ground, though; take for example this from The Guardian recently: "live performances of famous albums, an idea first popularised by All Tomorrow's Parties, have become exceedingly trendy". And it is first on The Observer's recent 10 best music festivals list. And these are from 5 mins looking. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but does need improving. I've added the Observer top 10 reference as a start. Soupy sautoy (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think a Google News Archive search for "All Tomorrow's Parties" music festival shows enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to easily satisfy the general notability guideline. Qwfp (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough mainstream sources to fulfill WP:N and WP:RS Ezhuks (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly consensus is moving towards keep. However, detailed line-ups of upcoming festivals definitely doesn't belong in the article. That's for their own web page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. clearly the article needs tidying up, but notability is easy to prove - User:Qwfp's news search does the job nicely. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination rationale is basically that this is unsourced, which WP:BEFORE would have taken care of.--Michig (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is easy to prove. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That wikipedia article and list of ATP bands is actually hugely important. Music fans use it to learn about bands that are endorsed by their peers, as performers must be invited to play the festival by other established acts. There is nowhere else you can get a list of past and future ATP performers that’s as concise and convenient as the list on this site. This article shouldn't be hard to reference. A quick google search comes up with write-ups in the following American publications: New York Times, The New Yorker, The Village Voice, Spin,Pitchfork:--Atlantictire (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Can't believe this discussion is still open. Very notable festival, if article needs to be improved with more sources someone should improve it, don't nominate a notable subject for deletion because the article needs work. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 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.