Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brattleboro Free Folk Festival (2nd nomination)

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. Davewild (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brattleboro Free Folk Festival[edit]

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

Renominating as hardly any participation last AfD . Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is incorrect in saying that it is an annual festival, as I have been unable to confirm that it happened more than once. I see plenty of passing mentions of the 2003 event, but no significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD brought forward some discussion of the 2003 event in a book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not entirely sure if it's annual but I've found loads of books on it [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], Also found a few news sources [11][12][13][14][15] so would say notability is there and simply needs expanding. –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 23:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insignificant 2003 festival. Dharahara (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's multiple mentions in books as well as books on it then it's not insignificant. –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory or a newspaper. There are plenty of articles that have been deleted even though there are citations. Sorry. Delete. Dharahara (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except this isn't a directory or newspaper ? .... It's a festival and by the looks of it a notable one. –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia would be a directory of festivals if articles like this were allowed. Sorry, delete. Dharahara (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the article has been here for nearly 10 years and is in sorry state. Needs re-writing. Dharahara (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have tons of festival articles on here, So should we get rid of major city articles like London, Glasgow, Belfast because technically we're then a directory of places? .... So if it's "in a sorry state" then why not fix it ?, With the greatest of respect there's millions of articles that are worse than this and most do get expanded as time goes on whether it's 2 8 or 25 years later, Looking at the history this has barely been edited since creation which is why it's in a poor state, –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice and improve. Looks like Davey found a number of sources for the article to be improved. Now, if 3-6 months go by and the sources don't work out, maybe it's time to renominate; I'd be reconsidering my vote then. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (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.