Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrofest


 * 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. MastCell Talk 22:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrofest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk)
 * How can other editors can replicate your result of, "I couldn't establish notability"? Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See the clause "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm removing my !vote due to participation in this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Neutralitytalk 11:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous argument is literally from WP:ATA. Our article on Argument from ignorance includes the following statement (referenced to pragmatism), "a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent."  An aged notability tag is not evidential by itself.  We've already seen in this cluster of nominations that one of these notability tags was added by an editor now banned for five years.  In another AfD case, seven references were added to the article after the notability tag was added.  Notability is not a content guideline, and a failure of notability can never be determined from article content including tags.  A statement in the nomination is that notability couldn't be established.  How can the results be replicated?  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we WP:AGF regarding the work of our volunteer authors.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. eg etc. --Vclaw (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 01:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a two day concert held in three (or is it four) successive years hardly sounds notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- using WP:NCONCERT as a reference, there is nothing specifically noteworthy of this specific event; most coverage simply verifies that it took place, or simply stating information about the event, nothing specific of note. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2013 (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.