Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 91 Harvest

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route 91 Harvest

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

WP:NOTINHERITED could not find SIGCOV unrelated to the shooting. Also event itself fails WP:DEPTH. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough references even before the shooting.[1] AIRcorn (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Champion: What do you mean by "Also event itself fails WP:DEPTH"? AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to Google News as provided by Aircorn confirms my belief that the event has not received in-depth coverage as basically all the articles are blogs or routine coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plenty are not blogs and are more than routine (depends on your definition of routine I guess, but they have more than the basic details). Sure a lot of them are local (Los Vegas Review and Los Vegas Sun), but you have also got the Rolling Stone with multiple mentions of it (including this pretty detailed one[2]). There is also the LA times[3] although that might fit the routine bill. This is all obviously in addition to the fact that it is receiving a hell of a lot of coverage now. There is enough here to write an acceptable article on the concert without making it a coatrack of the shootings. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All three years have seen coverage by major news outlets. Check out this Google search for some of the ones covering 2015 and 2016 and this Google search for some of the ones covering this year's before the shooting. The shooting certainly adds to its notability, even if it doesn't warrant it by itself. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pikamander2. It's been running for a few years, and had coverage before this weeks' event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly notable, even before this week's terrible events. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: Received consistent news coverage over its tenure, and constantly draws huge name country artists. This is silly. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yearly music festivals with 22,000 attendees are notable. S-1-5-7 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a reasonable amount of coverage pre-shooting. Post-shooting it has received significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a notable music festival. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: Meets GNG even when before the shooting occurred. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, had some coverage before the shooting. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has notability independent of the shooting. Lepricavark (talk) 17:59, 3 October 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.