Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Hyde Park 1976


 * 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. – Juliancolton  | Talk 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen Hyde Park 1976

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

Non-notable, unsourced concert. I hardly believe that there is any reason for a single concert to have an entire article on Wikipedia this side of something like Woodstock. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, a non-notable gig that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per BBC and those books - and I guess 200,000 people are close to Woodstock if you discount the stoned. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about how many people attended, I was talking about notability. A single concert is almost never notable. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 12:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: nothing inherently notable about this concert, a gig without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If neither breaking attendance records nor reliable source coverage shows notability to you, what, pray tell, is your definition of "notability"? DHowell (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This was one of the largest concerts ever in London, if not the largest. Plenty of reliable source coverage to be found. And I have no doubt that there is plenty of press coverage from 1976 which won't be found online due to FUTON bias. DHowell (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per DHowell and hexa, there is significant independent coverage of this significant event, thus satisfying WP:NOTE. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 11 April 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.