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. Sandstein 08:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noise and Confusion[edit]

Noise and Confusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This single-occurrence "festival" fails WP:N, specifically the part that reads: "...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time."

Although the concert was reviewed in the UK press at the time it occurred, I have been unable to locate a single review or commentary from anytime after Dec 12, 2005. There is no indication that anyone had the slightest interest in this event after it was over. Therefore, it fails the portion of WP:N that looks for significant lasting attention from the world at large. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a nn event lacking significant coverage. External links is the biggest section in the article, amounting to promotional spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The arguments in the previous AfD were an odd combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:EVERYTHING, and WP:ITEXISTS, none of which would be persuasive today. While notability is not temporary, it was a one-time concert of very doubtful notability even then. None of the sources previously offered are enough to demonstrate WP:GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 20 December 2017 (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.