Talk:IHeartRadio Music Festival

Nominated for deletion?
Why does this page have to be nominated for deletion two hours after the event ended? This page has all the information on the artists and the songs that they performed every year. For example, this year's lineup was amazing!! It included artists such as Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj, Coldplay, Ed Sheeran, Calvin Harris, Mötley Crüe, 50 Cent, One Direction, Iggy Azalea, and so much more, and their performances were all amazing! But unfortunately, all this information on the greatest music event of the year is about to be deleted soon!! Please keep this article!! Please!!!! Paul Badillo (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, Wikipedia is deemed to be neutral. You reply here is everything except that. The Banner talk 09:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral. Talk pages, neutrality is optional so long as it doesn't turn into a forum. :) Paul Badillo, I believe the article should be kept. It's a notable event, and there's a ton of sourcing for it. It easily meets WP:GNG. I see that there was some back and forth editing on this in the article itself and am surprised to find no discussion of it here. I agree with User:The Banner that it needs to be cleaned up. I've removed the list of songs for two reasons: first, it is unsourced and, second, even if sourced, it is far too much detail for an encyclopedic article on this festival. I am working on sourcing the line-ups, but having some trouble finding reliable sources to support the two day split in earlier years. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as it is sourced, why would more detail about the songs played be bad to a page like this that is so specific? There is not really much more to say about it, so I think a list of the songs would be relevant information as long as it is verified, right? I mean, someone that ended up in this article would probably be interested in who played and what they played, with no downsides to someone who does not.189.69.89.52 (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think not, but that kind of thing is always open for conversation. Wikipedia articles are meant to be high level overviews of what reliable sources say about subjects. A list of songs, if properly sourced, might be appropriate for a spin-off article (like List of songs at IHeartRadio Music Festival or something like that), but an article about the festival should talk about what the festival is, how it evolved, and what reliable sources have said about it. The word "cruft" has been used in the deletion nomination - the essay explaining what that means is Fancruft. The policy it references can be read at WP:INFO. This is a pretty widespread concept and what fits within the line of it is always going to be open to debate. But yesterday this article was completely unsourced, and there was no prose section at all outside of a minimal lead. I have tried to put some content in there to help develop it towards a full article as part of participating at the deletion debate (I think this article should be kept and developed), but it's still very rudimentary. For instance, there was an article in Forbes about the financial status of the festival. I saw reference to the viewership statistics of the show. These are the kinds of encyclopedic details that this article would really benefit from and that would help avoid people wanting to delete it altogether.


 * That said, the sourcing for the list of songs if it were to be included here or in a spin-off article would need to meet WP:IRS. This is not going to be an easy find, I'm afraid. We can't use fan sites or individual blogs, but need news sources or reliable industry websites. We can use the festival's own website for it, but I was not able to find much on that website, even when I was looking for sources to verify what musicians appeared. They seem far more interested in the present than they are documenting the past. :/


 * Alternatively, if there isn't a reliable source, there are other wikis that permit original research. It would probably be acceptable to create a Wiki on this festival at Wikia, for instance, and develop it as suits, including a list of songs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
I have a suggestion. I think there should be a separate article for a list of artists and songs perfomed at the iHeartRadio Music Festival. The article should have a title such as "List of songs performed at the iHeartRadio Music Festival" or something like that. Paul Badillo (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources do you have that document the songs performed, Paul Badillo? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have one reliable source: http://festival.iheart.com/
 * I don't see it; where is the list of songs? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I found another source, I just hope this works: http://www.setlist.fm/festival/2014/iheartradio-music-festival-2014-43d6d723.html
 * I'm sorry, Paul, but that's user-generated content (they have the "add a setlist" button) and can't be used on Wikipedia. :( (For the same reason, we can't cite Wikipedia itself.) Identifying reliable sources talks about how to tell if a source is reliable or not - generally, we look for peer-reviewed publications like newspapers or magazines, or (more likely in this case) reliable, professional industry websites. So, if iheartradio publishes the setlists themselves, we can certainly use that. We can probably use it if some radio station publishes it (so long as it's not user generated). One of the challenges of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia like our own is making sure that content is accurate. Anybody can add or change anything they want, and our verifiability policy was developed in part so we could have some faith that the content on Wikipedia is trustworthy, even though anyone can change it. I'm afraid that the reliable sourcing standard may be hard to overcome with this list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, in fact you will be recreating the article in the state that got it nominated for deletion. Do you not think that there is a high probability that the new article suffers the same fate? The Banner talk 21:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between a disingenuous nomination for deletion and an actual deleted article. If an article has no content or is on an unimportant subject, it probably should get deleted.  But there is a crowd of people who have taken this beyond removing junk and instead attack articles they don't like based on their uneducated opinion or in this case because they don't like the editorial direction of the content.  Granted, we have some very strict rules for using sourced content.  Many novice editors do not understand them.  Many, many wikipedia articles need editorial assistance.  It would be a far better use of time to help problem content, or even to discuss it, than to needlessly have to spend our time chasing down unnecessary AfDs.  And whatever the subject is, I highly recommend editors educate themselves in the subject before they inflict their opinion into the world's knowledge base.  We have a policy about that called WP:BEFORE.  When we pit one rushed, uninformed opinion vs a subject that thousands to millions of people know about, it makes wikipedia wrong.  And that gives every well informed article and the wikipedia project as a whole, a black eye. Trackinfo (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Instead of a speedy renomination, conform Articles for deletion/IHeart Radio Fiesta Latina, I now think that merging iHeartRadio Fiesta Latina into this article is the best option to preserve the info. After all, it is in fact spin-off of IHeartRadio Music Festival. And this Fiesta Latina has not yet established its own fanbase (as of now, the first edition is still in progress). The Banner talk 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your impatience? The event in question is scheduled to occur literally within hours of your request.  The event will sink or swim on its own merits after that.  If it gets no coverage, maybe you are right.  If its a boom or a bust, it will get press coverage following the event.  That would realistically start tomorrow.  As of the time of your writing, you don't know what its status is, do you? Trackinfo (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, you were one of the proponents to delete this article too. Trackinfo (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. This festival might be something different than the iHeartRadio Music Festival since it is focused on Latin music. Paul Badillo (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggesting a merge is the nicer one of the options that showed up in the discussion. It will not give me a headache to nominate it for deletion again. As you all can see, the outcome of the discussion was "no consensus". Not an outright "keep". The Banner talk 11:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this discussion still going on? Paul Badillo (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, because there is still no proof that the Latina version has drawn an substantial audience. The Banner talk 11:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been noticing that this discussion has been going on for some time and it is possible that a consensus may not be reached. Paul Badillo (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is but one person expressing support for this proposal, that being the proponent. Unfortunately, by the nature of these things, that leaves an ax hanging over the head of the articles until some administrator comes in to put this discussion to bed. Trackinfo (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but up to now, you guys failed to make absolutely clear that IHeart Radio Fiesta Latina is notable by drawing a substantial audience. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge is not a deletion - the content is simply moved elsewhere and easily found via the redirect left behind. In terms of the core question, notability is not established by the audience of the festival but rather by significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If it's got that, it meets the threshold. But even if it does meet the notability threshold, inclusion in a parent article for a young topic is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, the content doesn't disappear. It is moved and developed elsewhere until it is robust enough to stand alone. This article is a bit anemic as regards text, but I don't think the other one is so brief that it necessarily must be merged. Hence, I don't really have an opinion at this point. However, I do note that merger was proposed by several at the AFD, which makes this conversation really a continuation of that one. Pinging all who took part in that one, regardless of their positions, as it may help resolve the matter: User:Tomwsulcer, User:RightCowLeftCoast, User:Esprit15d, User:Hustlecat, User:KDS4444, User:Cunard, User: Unscintillating, User: DGG. (Not pinging those already here and, alas, cannot ping the IP.)  Maybe this will help resolve the question so that the topic can be closed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * merge sometime does let the content slowly disappear, but if used right it preserves the essential parts and preserves the history.I agree it would be a good option in this case. I think, in fact, it might be a good option in many case for events where the event is one of a series or group.  DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately merge frequently makes content disappear. It happens in a more subtle form as tiny pieces disappear over a period of time.  Details look out of place against a broader scoped article, so even well intentioned editors can make content disappear.  It is the clear intent that this proponent, who has submitted and encouraged AfDs against BOTH of these articles here and here, that the disappearance of all of this content is his goal.  He even speedied an earlier, misnamed incarnation of one article here as I was trying to rescue it--I was literally seconds late.  Each tiny step toward that goal is a success and only rewards his efforts. Trackinfo (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge: The festival included many artists and personalities who are without a doubt international stars, and did receive enough third-party coverage to absolutely warrant coverage in this encyclopedia. I did a Google search (web, news, images, scholar) and most of the coverage fell into these categories (in descending order): (1) Press releases that were regurgitated from what iHeartRadio provided the media; (2) Online ticket sellers; (3) Niche sites that cater to Latin-themed topics; (3) major press.  For that reason, I think it will be hard currently to find a significant amount of references to give this topic a balanced and thorough treatment.  It appears to remain, at this point, a subsidiary of the larger iHeartRadio franchise.  I don't think that it's a coincidence that this article currently has a NPOV tag at that top.  It reads like an ad, because most of the online coverage of the topic consist of ads and press releases.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

<ul><li>Oppose merge. Here are two reviews about the 2014 festival: <ol> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> This is in addition to the two sources I mentioned at Articles for deletion/IHeart Radio Fiesta Latina before the 2014 festival occurred. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is sufficient material to justify a second article. iHeartRadio Fiesta Latina currently is longer than IHeartRadio Music Festival. A merge would give undue weight to iHeartRadio Fiesta Latina, violating Neutral point of view. Cunard (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Take out the quotes and not much text is left... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, looking at reliable sources, I am of the opinion that it is too soon to tell whether the subject of this discussion meets WP:PERSISTENCE. The subject was advertised before the event occurred, and was reviewed shortly their after, but as an WP:EVENT, I believe it is too soon to tell whether its in-depth coverage will continue. Therefore, I say hold off on the merger, and in five months, come back to it. If nothing new has come of it, than merge it. If a second festival occurs, or is planned, keep it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Since we have reduced this to counting votes, I better make my vote apparent. Why are we back to counting sources?  Its as if the WP:GNG is still in question.  The Fiesta Latina article, most of which I wrote, has 19 independent sources, many from major media.  While looking for those sources, I did see the heavy effort of publicity planting by iHeart Radio.  These are commercial affairs, these companies have media departments.  It is a media closed, structured environment.  I didn't use those sources.  I saw the text in those sources.  I didn't use the major media that copied from those sources, so the existence of press releases does not affect the quality of the article.  And this article has 26 sources, most which are Billboard, Entertainment Weekly--all of them reliable major sources.  You are looking at the articles from the wrong perspective.  Many notable articles stand on far fewer sources reported in far less significant media than these articles already have.  We do not limit our reporting here based on the fact that an entity is commercial.  Do we not mention Coca Cola because it is an entity that is driven by commercials?  No, we actually report about significant changes in their commercial marketing strategy.  Do we merge Diet Coke into the main article?  Or even its lesser variants?  Good grief we even have an article for Coca-Cola Black Cherry Vanilla.  Why?  Because the product affects lots of people, as do these festivals even beyond the five figure seat venues, to the radio and TV broadcasts of these events. Trackinfo (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)