Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerodrome 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Aerodrome Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found no coverage of this music festival. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I fail to believe for one second that a festival that had Metallica, RHCP and The Pixies playing in the same year would have ZERO coverage in the media.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then try to find some. SL93 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Keep First off, it doesn't fail WP:N. It's clearly notable, it just needed sources. Which it has now.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It also requires significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it, Wolfie. It should be tagged for improvement, as it is clearly notable.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, GNG is the requirement to show it's notable. It is not clearly notable and I see no reason to think it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are sufficient reliable sources on GNews. Also in German. -- BenTels (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you show some that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think so, yes. Couple from the first page on GNews:
 * Traurige Äuglein inmitten des Sturms -- Coverage in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard about the 2004 edition.
 * Aerodrome-Festival: Staus um Wiener Neustadt erwartet -- Der Standard, during the run up to the 2005 edition (Rammstein playing, expected traffic problems)
 * "Aerodrome"-Festival am 10. und 11. Juni in Wiener Neustadt -- OTS about the 2004 edition.
 * Na Aerodrome festivalu 2005 tudi ljubljanska zasedba Backstage -- Slovenian coverage, 2005 edition. Can't read it myself though. -- BenTels (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This pretty much seals it. Nice work.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, a trivial mention, a traffic advisory and a press release. That leaves the derstandard.at article Traurige Äuglein inmitten des Sturms by Karl Fluch, which is the best source identified so far. Is it enough coverage to write an article about the subject though? It reviews performances by some of the very notable bands that performed that year, but has little to say about the festival itself. Contrast this with WP:EFFECT: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Is there any indication that this festival is of lasting significance? VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Is it enough coverage to write an article about the subject though?" Yes.  Lugnuts  And the horse 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2005 article in Der Standard is not a traffic advisory but an article covering the traffic and security precautions being taken to handle the expected crowds at the festival due to the performance by Rammstein. The OTS-article is not a press release, but coverage in the culture section of APA, an Austrian news agency (like Reuters or AP). Please do not misrepresent the contents of sources. -- BenTels (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And do you think traffic precautions is something we should mention in the article? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by my characterizations of the articles, with the caveat that I am relying on machine translations which of course can be inaccurate. The Der Standard article is in the traffic section of the website, and I do not see where it mentions "security precautions." The OTS article does not list an author and includes the disclaimer "OTS-Originaltext Presseaussendung unter ausschließlicher inhaltlicher Verantwortung des Aussenders" (ots.at, 7 June 2004). What do you interpret this to mean, other than identifying this specific article from the news service as a press release? Please do not misrepresent the contents of sources. Lugnuts, I followed the question you quoted with my reasoning as to why I did not consider the sources presented to represent significant coverage of the actual subject. Without reasoning behind your opinions, simple contradiction and repetition do not advance the discussion. Can you provide some reasoning as to why you disagree instead? VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not the point. The point is that it is coverage related to the event and VQuakr was trying to pretend that it is not. But since you ask: we are talking about a festival that was expecting 80.000 visitors for the 2005 editions, large enough that the security and traffic measures taken to accomodate it affected the city enough that it was reported in the national press. So do I think that is significant? Yes, I do. -- BenTels (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If these aren't potential sources then they don't help meet GNG, because they don't show there is significant coverage in reliable sources to discuss the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't potential sources. They're outright sources. -- BenTels (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to VQuakr: and I do not see where it mentions "security precautions." --> "Das Sicherheitskonzept für das Festival stehe ebenfalls schon, so Plotnitzer."
 * What do you interpret this to mean, other than identifying this specific article from the news service as a press release? --> Do you know how a news agency works? They release basic line coverage which other news media are allowed to copy and report upon. I.e. newspapers and television news and so on are allowed to pick up this article and broadcast it with attribution to the APA. How they use the article beyond the pure contents of the text is their responsibility, so if they offend somebody and get sued it's their problem. That's what that line says. -- BenTels (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please consider using a more civil tone. Yes, rereading the last two sentences of the traffic report I see what you are referring to. Definitely not an example of significant coverage though. As for the ots.at article, if you believe this is not a primary source being distributed by the newswire, then who is the author? VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. None of those sources show significant coverage. Bravewords is a questionable source and the "coverage" is 2 sentences, one of which is a list of who is scheduled. Blabbermouth, another source that would likely fail RS, devotes a single paragraph to the event (yet manages to get used 6 times as a source). Finally Ultimate Guitar, another likely RS failure, devoted a small paragraph that mainly says "it's happening". Not seeing the significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look above at the German/Austrian/Slovenian coverage. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable independent sources as required per WP:GNG; nothing seems forthcoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look above at the German/Austrian/Slovenian coverage. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and notability is not inherited. The existing article is just a list of bands, and the sources (if considered reliable) verify existence but to not cover the topic in sufficient depth to verifiably improve the article per WP:GNG. The German article contains only primary sources, so no help there. I was unable to locate any reliable sources that could be used to improve the article by providing content. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look above at the German/Austrian/Slovenian coverage. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like standard newspaper coverage of a single upcoming event; Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Considering the lack of follow up the reasoning of WP:10 year test applies. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had already replied regarding the 4 sources listed above when you posted this request, so I obviously had already looked above, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an essay and not policy, so it is irrelevant.  Lugnuts  And the horse 10:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that it was a policy, I am saying the reasoning applies: we don't have any real sign of notability besides some possibly unreliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "possibly unreliable sources" Well they either are reliable or they aren't. Which is it?  Lugnuts  And the horse 11:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete—notability requires significant coverage in sources. Currently I'm not seeing the significant coverage, and trivial mentions don't cut it. Till 02:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All those links via Google News cut's it. Look above.  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * *Cuts. Till 09:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct!  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I've looked through the sources, including those in German and Slovenian, and failed to find any substantial coverage. Coverage is terse and tangetial, at best, and confined mostly to unreliable sources. Concert announcements do not add much to notability, even in mainstream newspapers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.