Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glastonbury Festival line-ups

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 keep. (non-admin closure)} Kraxler (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury Festival line-ups

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly unsourced promo The Banner talk 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or split - I'm a bit torn on this one... I think Glastonbury is highly notable and culturally significant. It's the biggest festival in the world. Since it's been around for decades, I don't think it's unreasonable to have one article with the full history, as long as it can be sourced. I don't see how it is promo - who benefits from a listing of the 1984 lineup? However, at the same time, there are already articles for the 2008-2015 festivals, and I would have no problem if someone were to create one article for each edition, so maybe that would be a better suggestion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of notable acts playing one of the most famous music festivals would seem to satisfy the notability for a list. If being unsourced is the problem, then fix it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am waiting for your edits now. The Banner talk 21:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you'll be waiting a long time, son. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that. You just talk but don't act to your own words. The Banner talk 07:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the fact it's an extremely notable & famous event - I try to avoid "WP:ITSNOTABLE"-type !votes but Ignoring the rules for once. –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a useful source for information which is difficult to find elsewhere. Deleting this article would be a disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.77.59 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is why it needs sources... The Banner talk 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Banner - FYI, http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/history/ has a lot of information, and there's a book about the history too: Glastonbury: An Oral History of the Music, Mud and Magic which is solid and not too expensive. So sources exist to fix this page - I think tagging it with references needed is sufficient. I looked at the talk page - it's actually a really old article (2006) and has had a lot of people working on it. It wasn't properly categorized with the appropriate talk page - I tagged it the same as Glastonbury Festival article - which is top priority for Wikipedia:WikiProject Festivals and high importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset. You might drop a note at WikiProject Festivals and let them know this article is so sketch it was tagged for deletion - hopefully some volunteers will start improving it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources should be in the article, not here. The Banner talk 07:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Note that promotional tone can often be corrected by copy editing the article, and that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. Users commenting here are not obligated to add sources to or otherwise copy edit the article. Furthermore, see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and advertising-free. But a stance like this is seriously undermining that. The Banner talk 09:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's encyclopedic and sourceable. How is a list of bands that played the festival going back to 1970 a 'promo'? --Michig (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been going to Glastonbury for 12 years now and I find this page very interesting. Invaluable, you could say, when trying to remember previous festivals. I don't know how to edit Wikipedia but I did look at The Banner's user profile page here and it's clear that he's on a crusade to rid Wikipedia of what he considers to be promotional pages. This page, to anybody that knows the festival or has attended in previous years (millions of people) is clearly not promotional in any way. Thank you to whoever created this page and went to the effort of collecting together previous years listings. It could only have been "marked for deletion" by somebody who has no understanding of the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.212.55 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not going to be deleted. This debate should end now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.105.203 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article about the history of significant UK cultral event and therefore should be kept. Should we remove all articles about companies or football clubs as they promoting them? No, the article is factual, with the 2015 lineup updated new facts emerge around the line up. 80.69.142.131 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.