Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Church Festival

Big Church Festival

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I boldy merged this article over a year ago, but just noticed that my redirect was reverted in October. This festival fails WP:NCONCERT/WP:NCORP (which I think applies because this is a non-profit festival, i.e., an organization that puts on an event once a year). I have been unable to find sustained, in-depth coverage of the festival. As there is still merged content in Christian music festival#Worldwide, I propose restoring the redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Religion, Christianity, and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be be enough coverage to warrant the page to be kept and improved on. cyberdog958^Talk 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not count Event Industry News toward notability; per WP:TRADES, there's a presumption against using industry trade publications to establish notability. Christian Today and Cross Rhythms are both from 2015, hence why I noted this event lacks sustained coverage. Those are the only sources with SIGCOV I could find; the rest of the coverage I've been able to find are routine announcements that particular bands are performing at the event. In sum, two reviews from 2015 isn't enough to establish notability in my view. Cross Rhythms is also an interview with the founder, which means it lacks independence. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the Christianity Today piece and the Cross Rhythms piece which has a significant coverage prose introduction before the interview part, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional. Irrelevant. with hardly any reliable or independent references--Alon9393 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant is a personal opinion not a notability factor and promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor frequently argues an article is relevant or irrelevant, I'm not sure what that means. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Looks irrelevant and not sure about the notability of the subject.Santoshsah4 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by [l]ooks irrelevant? If you're not sure about the notability of the subject, why do you think this article should be kept? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Santoshsah4. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]