Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaguluhan Music 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   no consensus. Skomorokh 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Kaguluhan Music Festival

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable musical event. User234 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The music festival has 3 articles at Pulp Magazine and will be releasing a home video and its logo is copyrighted in the Philippines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The music festival has been established since 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Even if it existed since 2004, it may not have enough notability to merit extensive coverage. I wasn't able (yet) to verify the references mentioned in Pulp magazine, and then again I'm also unable to verify this from other sources. --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Beyond the Friendster and Facebook profiles, this event is not extensively covered by notable media sources (broadsheets, for instance).  Starczamora (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the music festival doesn't need mainstream or extensive media support such as notable media sources that you usually prefer, it has a cult following in the music scene. now if you're not convinced with that why don't you talk to the editor in-cheif of Pulp Magazine for you to find out the impact of the music festival.
 * It also has been copyrighted by the Intellectual Property office in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kaguluhan Music Festival need not be mainstream it is an underground music event that is widely known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't blame you for not knowing the music festival, maybe you need to research more than just your usual resources. just because it isn't in the mainstream sources it is not well-known.(talk)


 * If it's really "widely known" then it may already be considered as having entered the mainstream...how can something be mainstream be not widely known at least, in this context, in the Philippines (if not the world)? And under the Philippines, virtually anything copyrightable can be copyrighted (except for those that should be patented or trade-/service-marked), which includes (but not limited to) musical works, sculptures, speeches...well, even love letters can be copyrighted. That doesn't make them automatically notable. You may want to read up on Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources to guide you. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The music festival is an "Underground" music event that has a "cult" following in the region of Cavite. A cult-following means it has a strong fan base that need not have the mainstream support because let's face it, mainstream doesn't give a damn at the underground music scene. Now if you're not contended with that kindly contact Pulp Magazine's Editor-in-chief to prove the notability of the music event. We're not putting an article at wikipedia that isn't factual but really it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I could provide you a copy of the three articles courtesy from Pulp Magazine via email for your perusal with regards to the notability of the Kaguluhan music festival and it's entities. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Not everything that is factual is automatically eligible to be included on Wikipedia. Nobody contests the facts that, say, the President of the Philippines has guards, but that doesn't mean that all the guards are eligible to have their own Wikipedia article. Nobody also disputes that people were born and die, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a birthday or who died can have their own Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability limits the number of articles that may be included in order for Wikipedia to attain a certain standard for articles. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So even an article from Pulp magazine doesn't meet your standards and notability? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Isn't a magazine considered a reliable source for information other than the usual broadsheets? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Usually, yes. But since this article cites just one magazine, we need other sources to verify the information on the article. This is to eliminate the chances of any possible conflict of interest between the subject of the article and those who created or who add content to the articles. Other than Pulp magazine, blogs and message boards, I was unable to find any other third-party reference. (And no, don't give me another blog, it's not allowed either.)
 * One more thing: Pulp magazine may be a notable magazine (although as of today it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article), but that doesn't mean that everything that gets mentioned on it automatically becomes notable as well. Hindi namamana ang notability, it's not passed on to the magazine's content topics. The notability of a Wikipedia topic is independent of its source material's notability. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're suggesting that the music event needs other articles to get the notable exposure it needs? well then, since the 6th event is going to take place this November 7th, we might as well put an article on a newspaper for your info, though the article isn't as big as you expect like other mainstream concerts in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it is best to read WP:NOTE, Wikipedia's guideline on notability, especially the section "General notability guideline". It should clarify many of the concerns aired above. &mdash; •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak!  08:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So far the only notable reference that we have is our yearly articles from Pulp Magazine. Now if this is what wikipedia's criteria is, then feel free to cast your nomination to delete my 2 articles with regards to the Kaguluhan Music Festival. I couldn't care less anymore, Mainstream media support doesn't care less about the Philippine underground music scene anyways. Besides the music festival's article had a good run since 2007. Megr1124 (talk


 * Weak keep The fact that the music festival is covered in Pulp (whether or not it is a passing or dominant mention is one that I still cannot answer) is a possible indication of its notability, and is something that we should not discount simply because the article creator cannot provide the articles in question. A brief Google search (which apparently was not present in the entire course of this AfD) says that this event has some 7,300 hits.  However, what strikes at me more is the reason for why the nominator nominated this article in the first place, as I remain unconvinced by the simple explanation "non-notable musical event", which to me smacks of systemic bias, when there are mentions in a major music magazine.  If it really was that unnotable, then I wonder why this article has been here for so long. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After much contemplation, I change my vote to keep. To the closing admin: I am under the suspicion that the "delete" vote by the article's creator may have been done under pressure by the original delete votes above, prior to this keep vote.  Please take that into consideration when closing this AfD.  Thanks! --Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh  02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep. The fact that this music festival has been covered by Pulp magazine multiple times over sa few years seems to imply that this festival is notable to some degree. I wish there were other more mainstream coverage elsewhere and not just in Pulp, but I see no problem with this article on the festival being retained just as long as the sources are not too primary. --seav (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To user Seave, Unfortunately the media and or mainstream support couldn't care less about the Independent Pinoy Rock and Metal underground music scene because of too much red tape and bureaucracy, It is also the first time that the music festival's notability is questioned due to lack of other secondary sources when the article has existed since 2007 and merited countless hits on the web. Because of what has transpired, the producers and organizers myself included are planning to release a promo article on the newspaper with regards to the 6th installment and its initial concert film which will be released direct to home video for a limited supply only from its independent label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute...you're implying that you and the organizers of this music festival know each other and are actually planning to release promo articles for newspapers? --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have decided to meet the producers and event organizers because of this matter. I've been telling them so much about you with regards to the credibility of Kaguluhan music festival as a music event. They were very upset that the article of the concert film was gone and didn't get to browse it first hand, thanks to you and now this. I actually suggested the idea with them to put up a press release to some newspapers for "your" opinion's sake, Pulp advised however that Kaguluhan's growing popularity is based from an emerging word of mouth from its notable musicians/bands who have previously performed in the festival along with the magazine's support, and contesting it here with you and Wikipedia is just merely a waste of time based from their experiences. You once previously claimed that wikipedia only obtains information from secondary and third party sources, but this I ask: "where do you get the sources of the subject being discussed?" from it's original sources right? so on the contrary; "Notability can also be inherited." Wikipedia cannot promote I am aware of that, but we can however document the subject's progress. Now, whatever transpires in the fate of the notability of Kaguluhan Music Festival and its related articles, the organizers however are very thankful that the festival's recognition in the local underground music scene has already been noticed even in the web (despite that you and Wikipedia strongly deny it) since this article has existed from 2007 meriting with 7,300 hits and still counting. Though I will continue as possible in documenting the music festival's history timeline even if this article still has yet to be resolved. As for my suggestions with the organizers, It's still their decision not mine. So don't ever implicate me of any Conflict of Interest or me influencing them what to do with regards to the subject being questioned here, but they do however commend what I've contributed. --- Megr1124 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (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.