Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isotopia 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Isotopia Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:GNG. for a recent festival nothing in gnews and nothing in a major Australian news service. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Short-lived music festival, now defunct, that does not seem to have garnered any outside coverage during its three-year existence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep doesn't fail GNG, the article cites numerous independent references. Dan arndt (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * keep article looks well referenced. I saw entries on Trove and google search & bing search. it's also listed on all the major Australian psytrance sites/portals. also it was one of the places that "two-time Academy Award nominee", David Bradbury's documentary Blowin' In The Wind was screened (about uranium effects overseas & the testing in Aus). archived here & here Kathodonnell (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per other keep arguments - by the very nature of life and existence in Darwin NT - many very notable events do not necessarily hit southern states media - and to claim that hits on southern states are required for something to be notable (gng - not there = doesnt have N is false reasoning) - then it shows an astonishing lack of understanding of how regional issues can exist in Australia that do not hit mainstream southern media, nominator should think again about such nominations SatuSuro 12:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * many localised regional events worldwide do not qualify for WP notability for that very reason, for something to make WP, it needs a lot more than local coverage. It's got nothing to do with the southern states media conspiracy. What an astonishing concept. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ABC News Australia has a Darwin office, but even they can't be bothered covering this event. . so much for southern states ignoring it. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm I serched on the ABC website rather than google and got a hit seams they did cover the festival Gnangarra 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I clicked on this link and it gave me an article on nuclear power and nothing to do with this specific festival. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I am willing to be educated on Australian sources, but it looks to me as if all the "independent sources" in the article are basically just calendar-type listings. I'm not seeing any significant coverage or review by independent reliable sources. And I don't know of any Wiki policy that says, since evidence of notability could be hard to find we should just keep the article without such evidence. The fact that the festival screened a documentary by David Bradbury does make the festival itself notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. The fact that the festival only existed for three years seems to detract from its notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced, noting that Trove also lists additional sources some online but these are behind paid per view walls. Gnangarra 11:32, 15 June 2011 (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.