Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Camp 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. Sources is not overwhelming, but consensus is that the article squeaks by.Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Camp Music Festival[edit]

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

Advertising. Articles based on links to nowhere or dead links from the festival organisation itself. No independent sources conform WP:RS. No indications of audience size, so doubtful notability. I have been cleaning up the article, but what is left is a single line up list with a lot of links going to the wrong targets. The Banner talk 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a quick Google search I have found several articles from independent sources that show this events notability. This event has 20,000 to 25,000 attendants and has been going on for over ten years. Also, I would like to know what part of the article the nominator considers advertising, it is largely just a list of the artists attending with no obvious promotional language. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is only after a massive clean up. But with no independent sources plus an obvious COI, I consider it advertising. The Banner talk 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, do you not consider the sources I gave to be independent? Also what is this "obvious" conflict of interest you refer to? I see no evidence that any of the editors that have edited the article being personally involved with the event. Sure the article in its current state is still rather poor, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no independent sources. About the COI: worked the show and saw Backyard Tire Fire perform the noon set on the main stage on Saturday., edits by Jgee design and several others. The Banner talk 22:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that there may be a possible COI going on with some of the editors here, but what exactly is your reason for deletion if you accept my sources as valid? It passes WP:GNG as content does not determine notablity and it is currently written in a fairly neutral manner, not at all like an advertisement. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For starters because none of your three links is working. The Banner talk 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dunno. The Journal-Star link's a good one. The Washington Times-Reporter link is obviously a press release, and itself is a small town weekly with a miniscule circulation--- wouldn't count that as a reliable source. What the heck is "centralillinoisproud.com" Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like series of notable events, and it is covered by outside sources. The problem with the article is that it does not utilize those outside sources WP:SOFIXIT--TMD Talk Page. 01:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search for sources throws up a lot of hits. Most of them are passing mentions of notable bands playing there, but there are so many of them, that I think if you put them altogether, you've got enough content to pass WP:GNG. I have added a few news reports from the Peoria Journal-Star and a brief appraisal in Rolling Stone to help the article on its way. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 10 December 2014 (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.