Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surface 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   speedy delete. CopyVio, no evidence of suitable cc license  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Surface Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

With a prize pot of £100,000 and final events taking place at the O2 Arena, this festival should be more notable, but apparently it isn't. Only one significant result in gnews: a local paper covering this year's winner (along the lines of "home town band makes good"). All provided references are from primary sources (the festival's own website and its MySpace page). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Hi there, this article was uploaded today and I am unsure why exactly it is being marked for deletion. It seems the point of view of Dan61 is that a search on gnews is the way to determine whether an article should stay up. Is this correct? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.3.220 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment page was tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio while I was completing this nomination. Even if Copyvio can be addressed, I doubt that notability can be established.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply The article is marked for deletion for two reasons:
 * It is a direct copy of the text at http://surfacefestival.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/surface-festival-moves-forward-into-2011/, which makes it a copyright violation.
 * The Surface Festival does not seem to have received any significant coverage in reliable sources (as indicated by a lack of results when using the Google News search engine on the phrase "Surface Festival") which is the basic criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. The blog is owned by the contributor, so it's not a copyright issue. If you Google "Surface Festival" there are lots of worthy news stories on blogs etc, however, if you feel that the Festival is not worthy of Wiki and does not fit your criterion please delete as appropriate. However, we would be sad to see it go :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Just because someone says that "I own that content so there is no copyright" that doesn't make it so. Since Wikipedia accounts are essentially anonymous, there is no way to verify that the person is telling the truth.  There are ways to donate copyrighted material, but that will not address the notability issue.  Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources, as there is no editorial fact-checking process.  Lack of coverage in any legitimate media is problematic for a festival that purports to be so extensive.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dan, The reason there is not much out there in terms of “news” is because the Surface Festival launched on 1st October 2010. Therefore it has only been around for 19 days. In 2011 the Festival claims 500 shows, 24 global sponsors, 14 cities across the U.K. and Europe and £100,000 of prizes to be won at the o2 in London. Over the coming months one will see major articles about the event in key publications that are relevant to the music industry. The news stories about this event will grow substantively in the coming months. May I suggest to you therefore that it would be wise to keep the article and to reassess its suitability in a month or so.

In respect of the copyrighted material, I completely agree with you that it is impossible to ascertain whether permission has been granted unless proof is given. Therefore I can arrange for an email from Surface Festival to be sent tomorrow to Wiki confirming permission for the material to be used. If a reference is required on the page we can add that too. Please advise on the best course of action. Thanks for your time and assistance in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the festival has just launched, it is probably not yet notable, although it may become so. Claims that the organizers make about the possibilities of this festival are not reliable sources.  It could well be that the first venue turns out so badly that all of the sponsors pull out and the festival will die there.  Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the presumed future notability of an event cannot be used to justify its coverage in Wikipedia.  As for the copyright issues, you can pursue that if you wish, but given the notability issues (or lack thereof), it may not be worth your efforts.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is complete nonsense and of course will not happen. Clearly the article will be removed, therefore please feel free to remove the article as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "clear" about the outcome of this discussion. So far only two users have chimed in.  More input from other users is needed to reach consensus.  There may well be a lot of users who disagree with me.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While we are waiting on the outcome can we remove the massive red box at the top of the article which suggests the page is about to be deleted. It looks messy and ruins the article. If this cannot be done please remove the article, or the original poster (my collegue) can remove it tommorow when she gets into the office, if that helps. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the Articles for deletion notice cannot be removed until this discussion is concluded. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we will remove the artical tommorow. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.136.229 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (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.