Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Focus concerts


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Focus concerts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was somewhat impressed by the list but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this looks like WP:LISTCRUFT. This article is sourced to the band's website and bootleg live albums, both nothing I would consider independent of the group. The article creator has indicated they will re-create this article when it is deleted so I suggest either salting this article title or having a talk with said editor before they get themselves blocked. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as fancruft / listcruft of zero encyclopedic relevance and for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Use 5 pounds of salt. The article uses primary sources which counts as zero towards notability. Otr500 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE WP:FANCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unencyclopedic and and mere transferring of list from their website to Wikipedia. Basically SPAMLIST and no single secondary coverage. I also support salting per the above diff by the nom, since it very likely be recreated. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another uncyclopaedic list of dates poorly formatted with a lack of credible sources. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2017 (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.