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. Missvain (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Gathering 2005[edit]

Global Gathering 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A music event that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I would suggest a merge to Global Gathering but I don't think that any of this content is worth retaining. It's all written as if to promote the event, right down to the price listings for booze and the time at which we can expect each act to take to the stage. Sources do exist for this event but it's all routine announcements, not enough in-depth coverage. Spiderone 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the Global Gathering festivals were major dance music festivals at the time, attracting tens of thousands of people – the claim in the article that this was the biggest dance festival in the country is very believable, even if it can't be verified. There probably are reviews of this particular year's event in music magazines like Mixmag, but as these aren't available online, I can't make a strong case for keeping this article based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. And I can't disagree with the nominator that the content is just trivia and not worth keeping – there's nothing about the actual music except for set times. Richard3120 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Global Gathering itself warrants a topic, it's probably only second to Creamfields in terms of attendance. I've never been myself but I've been to many similar festivals and had a great time. My reason for starting the AfD is because I didn't feel each individual year warrants its own article. If you remove all the promo material, there isn't really an article left. Any worthwhile content could probably summarised in one or two sentences in the main article, if necessary. Spiderone 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you – I used to go to all those festivals too... GG, Creamfields, Homelands, Gatecrasher Summer Sound System... I just wanted to emphasise for editors who aren't British or into dance music, that these festivals are not some village green affair, they really were major music festivals in the UK. But you are right, it's unlikely that each year warrants its own article, and certainly not this kind of article full of irrelevant trivia. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the set list did give me some nostalgia I must say! Good times were certainly had. Spiderone 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow, that was an interesting message to receive about this article! It was me who created this article all those years ago (and I think it was my first one when I was a Wikipedia baby). But I'm not saying that because I created it and went to the event. I've always had a very long term view of encyclopedias. Personally speaking I find it interesting to read things written, say, a hundred years ago. I actually remember deliberately including things like the price of drinks and whatnot because I thought ephemera liek that maybe one day, many years from (even more than 15), someone might find the useful. It is true that the article doesn't have any pages and I suppose you can't go on my word that I wrote those setlist times out from the programme (maybe I can find it?). In principle, I don't mind it being merged into a larger Global Gathering page, but it sort-of seems a shame to lose such detail.(I can see it could do with some editing!) Maybe one day there will be no dance music and people will be curious to study Underworld's live music a bit like I was reading about Henry Purcell earlier today. Seaweed (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wikipedia's notability policy has changed a fair bit since then. I think we have to be quite firm when it comes to WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability and it's hard to see articles like this meeting those standards any more. If a concert fandom Wiki exists, then that would be the appropriate place for these setlists and price lists etc. Spiderone 11:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• After thinking about it, I would probably say delete. Drinks prices in 2005 might be interesting to some people, but it's not encyclopedic material. More to the point, it's not verifiable either – the same goes for "most attendees arriving via the M40 motorway", "the weather was mainly overcast and there was occasional drizzle", the police had an X-ray machine... this is all trivia, and unverifiable trivia. Basically the only part that could be verified are the set lists, and we don't have a reliable source for that right now, and many editors aren't keen on having huge lists of performers of every year of the festival. Richard3120 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete thoroughly unsourced (well, there's an implicit primary source of the festival's program), and largely promotional. We don't have stand-alone articles for each year of Burning Man (with 70k attendees), so I don't buy the WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. Best handled as a blgo post and/or having the program on archive.org, not as an article for each year's festival power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 23 December 2020 (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.