Talk:Firefly Music Festival

2017 Lineup
Walter_Görlitz keeps commenting out the 2017 lineup section after it's been in the article for 4 or so months, on the claims that it's advertising, but it's not. WP:NOTADVERTISING is what he claims, but if you read that policy, it simply doesn't apply in this case. Let's look at it: It's NOT: 1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind. It's entirely objective and NPOV to include a list of the officially announced performers.  It's NOT an 2) Opinion piece. It's NOT an opinion to include a list of the performers for this event. It's NOT: 3) Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. It's entirely factual, non-contentious, and in no way a rumour that this is the lineup for this event. It's NOT: 4) Self-promotion. To the best of my knowledge, nobody with a Conflict of Interest is editing this article. I certainly have no relation with this event, and even if I did, which I don't, a simple list of the performers at this event is entirely NPOV. It's NOT: 5) Advertising, marketing or public relations. A simple list of the performers for this event is entirely objective, unbiased, free of puffery, not an extension of their marketing, and easily verifiable from both primary as well as third party reliable sources.  Specific facts which this simple list is is perfectly suitable to be taken from a primary source.  However, there are thousands and thousands of other reliable sources for this information; how many citations does this editor or any others think we need?  We haven't needed them for any of the other simple factual lists of lineups in previous years, and some of those sources are already linked. Centerone (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. It has no sources. If it had multiple reliable sources to discuss this year's line-up, it wouldn't need to be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's sourced from the primary source, which is already linked, and is perfectly legitimate for this sort of simple factual information that is not in any way contentious, controversial, or debated in any way. There are thousands of reliable sources which repeat this information that are easily accessible.  Do you want us to cite references for each individual band?  Or for the entire list?  We haven't had to do this for any other previous lineup.  Yes, I didn't add a citation, but only because it's NOT necessary.  I note that you did not in the least bit debate anything about the facts as I pointed them out -- your claim of the policy which you repeatedly cited is simply wrong and doesn't apply at all. Centerone (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Hey all! Come to my festival. Please!? WP:PRIMARY sources are not legitimate for his sort of future event. That's what advertising is about. And citing from each band is no less advertising or PRIMARY. WP:SECONDARY sources are. Check out the current U2 tour. It had lots of press before the tour so the article was permitted to exist prior to the tour starting. I'm sorry you think I'm wrong. I'm not. Articles have been deleted and content is regularly removed (not simply commented out) when it violates that policy. I am not debating it because there's nothing to debate. Show it's notable and we're not simply helping the festival promote itself, and the lineup can stay. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial RFC:Lineups as new article?
I think it may be time to split off the majority of the lineup information into a new article perhaps? Due to the large size of the lineups, we can't keep adding them to this article year after year without growing the article too much. Centerone (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But that separate article would become too large very quickly as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)