Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brass: Durham International 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. No prejudice to recreation with sources. Shimeru (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brass: Durham International Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm not sure about this one. A google search seems to turn up mostly promotional announcements. If someone can turn up something more substantial I will be more then happy to withdraw this nomination.

If kept the article will need a complete overhaul as it looks more like an advertisement then an encyclopedia article. I almost tagged it CSD G11. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is one of the more major events in Durham, but the coverage in GNews turns up little more than articles in the local papers. I could be talked round to the case for an article, but certainly not this shamelessly promotional one. Suggest the best place to mention this is in a Culture section in Durham (along with other long-standing major events) should anyone want to do that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article as written is an unambiguous piece of spam. If this were a company I would have tagged it G11 and forgot about it. Also, the username of the article's main contributor is Brass festival. Obvious COI. Another editor tried tagging it as such and got reverted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep but tone down -- I have tried to wikify the article, but it is far too much like advertising copy. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2010 (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.