Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orfeo 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orfeo Music Festival[edit]

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

This might be a geography issue, but I found four GNews hits for this festival. A more general Google search turned up little beyond personal websites and "I'm going to Orfeo" mentions. It may have an impressive staff roster, but it doesn't seem to be notable. Primefac (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is also likely a paid work; I'd asked the editor to declare their COI but he wasn't forthcoming beyond the one article that was repeatedly being spammed and I left this note. As for this one, the references within are entirely to the people involved and not the festival, a general search didn't seem to lead anywhere either. The own work images are the same as those on the festival's twitter account too. —SpacemanSpiff 10:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not support by enough credible/reliable sources to support its notability. Also this reads like an advertisement (which makes sense in the context of a possible paid work). Impressive roster like the above person said, but not enough to warrant an article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than a few trivial mentions uncovered during searches, no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've also explored PROD instead, nothing else convincing for any applicable notability and if there is, we can wait for better. My searches found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 18 May 2016 (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.