Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne International Festival of Brass (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 04:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne International Festival of Brass

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Can't find much in the way of mentions on google apart from WP:CIRCULAR or primary sources, no sources at all cited in article. If someone can find them, I would be happy to not delete. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Multiple sources were found in the previous AfD, but were never added to the article for some reason even after the decision was to keep the article. MarkiPoli (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found in the previous AfD - AFD is not cleanup. Deus et lex (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEXIST is quite clear on this matter: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. The sources from the previous AfD seem to establish notability, and they don't need to be in the article for that. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NEXIST. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources identified in first AFD. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Not sure why this was relisted a second time. This was an inappropriate re-nomination and is an entirely non-controversial close as keep.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2023 (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.