Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vento Winds


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Vento Winds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable small orchestra formed in 2013, which plays two annual public concerts. No recordings, CDs or similar. No references found in news or book sources-- not surprisingly, given the short time since its founding. Speedy deletion tags removed by creator and others. Does not satisfy not a single criterion for notability at WP:MUSBIO. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the editor above has conveniently changed the location of this argument to silence my voice and the original editor's voice...I'm just going to leave this here. FROM Contest of Speedily Deletion Discussion: "Notability, like art is relative, biased, and convoluted. I think we all know the media chooses what they deem "notable" or not and it may not be the fault of anyone in this group or the actions of the group itself (or lack there of) that caused them not to get the press they so deserved. I say let this page be. Their impact on their own community in itself deem it noteworthy, and user HappyValleyEditor may not have the direct relationship with the city, state, or country that this music ensemble belongs to in order to make that call." I think it's obvious the original editor had a direct relationship to the page. I however do not, and hope to be reading more about this small, and obviously locally noteworthy pursuit on Wikipedia in the near future. 174.103.229.23 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I will not contest the difficulty of finding references in news or book sources. But it is clear this group is currently heavily active in its community. 174.103.229.23 (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IP, I will not contest that it can be hard to find proper references for such local groups, which may well be important to their community. However, we are not the state's pedia--articles here need to be on subject that have the kind of importance that is attested by reliable secondary sourcing so the subject passed WP:GNG. (Impact on the community isn't even proven in the article, let alone broader significance.) That does not seem to be the case for this ensemble. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment 174.103.229.23, speak away! This is actually a larger public forum than the talk page for the article.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  13:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete A7 There is no assertion of notability in the article and no references that could back one up if it existed. To the IP: The criteria for inclusion is not based on a perception of importance, either by you, me, your community or anyone else. Instead it is based on exactly what you state does not exist. Media coverage. If a subject is not written about in detail in multiple reliable sources (and in the cases of organisations such as this, or corporations, from geographically disbursed locations), it doesn't get an article. John from Idegon (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete local musical group, no indication of meeting WP:BAND. And I come from their area of Wisconsin and I disagree with 174.103.229.23's suggestion of their importance. I still encourage the anonymous contributor to voice their opinion in this public forum.  Royal broil  19:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and none of this is currently convincing enough to keep. SwisterTwister   talk  23:07, 25 March 2016 (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.