Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Northern Exhibition

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 no consensus. A Train^talk 19:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Exhibition[edit]

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

Article about an annual event, not referenced well enough to clear our notability standards for annual events. The only "reference" cited here is the event's own self-published history of itself, not a reliable source that's independent of the event organizers, so the existence of the book is not a WP:GNG pass all by itself in the absence of any other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination assesses notability based on sourcing in the article. It's immaterial whether sources that establish notability are referenced in the article, other than that if they are referenced in the article, then it's easy for readers to find and evaluate them. Largoplazo (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is assessing notability based on how Wikipedia notability works. Notability is not independent of sourceability — and it is not immaterial whether sources that establish notability are referenced in the article. An article without sources can be kept if better sources can actually be found to salvage it with, but is most certainly not exempted from ever having to have sources added to it if they can't — but I have looked, and did not find any evidence of the depth and range of sourcing it would take to get something like this into Wikipedia: it would have to pass WP:AUD, on sourceability to more than just local coverage in its own area, and I can't find any evidence of the kind of wider coverage that it takes. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not independent of sourceability": that's what I said; but sourceability ≠ sources in article, and your nomination as stated was based on the latter. As for "... and it is not immaterial whether sources that establish notability are reference in the article": False. See WP:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Further WP:BEFORE calls for a search of one's own for sources before nominating an article for deletion for a lack of notability. If they do exist, then the editor may

add some to the article;
add appropriate maintenance tags to the article;
if the article is already tagged, then leave the tags there until someone does make the effort to improve the article.

Deleting the article in that case isn't appropriate. What would the deletion rationale look like? "I found sources that demonstrate notability, but they aren't in the article, so the article qualifies for deletion because I didn't have time to add them"? That wouldn't go over well.

And now you say you did do your own search. If you mean that you did that before nominating the article, then you ought to have said so in your nomination. I don't know why someone having a sound rationale for nominating an article for deletion would write up a rationale that isn't sound. The point of the nomination is to make one's case for deletion. Why make a bad case when you have a good case to make? Of course other editors are going to question an invalid rationale.

As for the remainder of your remarks to me: I wasn't arguing that this topic is notable, so I don't need to address them; they sound like you have now conducted due diligence, whether it was before your nomination or after I'd commented. Largoplazo (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not generally considered necessary, or even useful, for an AFD nominator to provide a complete summary of every individual step they took to determine whether the article was salvageable to outside sourcing or not — doing that would, in most cases, make the nomination statement so TLDR that nobody else would be arsed to participate at all. There have certainly been cases where it was obvious that the nominator even try, usually because they nominated a no-brainer notable like Justin Trudeau or Donald Trump — but normally, there's no value in the nominator listing every individual bit of WP:BEFORE that they actually did, and even less value in attacking the nominator for not listing all the BEFORE that they didn't have to list. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:15, 24 May 2018 (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.