Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigs in the City

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. LFaraone 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs in the City[edit]

Pigs in the City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a marketed product of Uptown Lexington, Inc. and reads like an advert. Sources used are only local sources and do not establish notability. There are literally hundreds of thousands of annual local events and we cannot have an article on all of them. Short of national coverage, such events are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Yworo (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - For starters, this article was listed on the front page of Wikipedia in 2008 in a "Did you know?" segment (see the talk page) demonstrating it has already undergone administrative review. The lead photo was considered for photo of the day. The event has been mentioned in Kate Boehm Jerome's book North Carolina: What's So Great about This State? [1] and Charlotte and the State of North Carolina [2]. It has a 12 images accompanying it and is sufficiently referenced by reliable sources that are not from Lexington, but other cities in NC. No part of WP:N requires references are beyond a state border, and the articles scope meet or exceed the expectations of significant coverage. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, DYK is not in any way, shape, or form an "administrative review". It is done by regular editors who can approve each others submissions and typically only cares about the length of the new article and/or added material and whether the specific fact has a good citation. It is not a peer review, a good article review, or a featured article review, and cannot be relied on to review the whole article for notability. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge , selectively to parent article on the Lexington. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Those references listed are either primary ones, mention the promotion only in passing or are stale links. RadioFan (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge unless there are sources from outside the area. This is overcoverage of local events. If better sources ever do appear, the article can be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If sufficient sources are added, keep as a separate article, much like CowParade, since (who knows?) other cities may copy this public art idea. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    or like Big Pig Gig. These are cultural events that might not make national headlines but are important parts of the regional culture. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per coverage in reliable sources, topic passes WP:GNG. Contrary to the nomination, there is no stipulation that "local sources" are disqualified to qualify topic notability:
  • Broughton Hodges, Vikki (May 18, 2009). "Uptown Lexington's Pigs in the City 5 unveiled". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Stiff, Bob (March 8, 2003). "It will be a sporktacular time, but these pigs need parents". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Broughton Hodges, Vikki (October 24, 2003). "Uptown Lexington to auction 'Pigs in the City' on Nov. 1". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Keesler, William (December 4, 2007). "Sooey! Call goes out for Pigs in the City IV sponsors". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "'Pigs in the City' exhibit provides chance to discover downtown Lexington's appeal". The Dispatch. May 14, 2008. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Edwards, Deneesha (May 19, 2008). "Pigs parade through town". The Dispatch. Retrieved December 29, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 01:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment even with this coverage in the local newspaper, this subject can be adequately covered in the article on the town. It's just not notable enough for a dedicated article. I'm still !voting for a merge.--RadioFan (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has coverage beyond the local newspaper (The Dispatch), where it is covered extensively. It has coverage in the Piedmont Triad and Metrolina areas by 3 major paper (cites now in article). These aren't exactly small cities, even if Lexington, the host to the event, is. It has been covered in at least one book as well. I get the fact that this isn't a major event, but that isn't the criteria. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Added to the article:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 02:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't call any of these sources a "major" newspaper. Nothing against them and they are certainly reasonable sources to use here but I maintain that this can be adequately covered in the town's article and should be merged there. It's a wonderful public art project but hardly groundbreaking and there is really not much else that can be written about it. It will fit nicely in the parent article. --RadioFan (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winston-Salem is a town of 229k people, Greensboro is 270k. Both are top 100 largest cities in the US (83rd and 69th). The Piedmont Triad area they belong to (and circulation reaches) is well over 1.6 million people, the 30th largest metro area in the USA. These aren't exactly podunk cities, and their newspapers easily pass WP:RS. Second, the article's subject does not have to be "groundbreaking" to be notable, it only has to pass the criteria, which it does by having "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources", and it does. As to your other point, WP:TOOLITTLE clearly points out that this is never a valid argument for deletion, only a reason to add material to the article. As it stands now, it has many articles in at least three newspapers (two of which are larger city publications, in different cities), one book, multiple state agencies, plus regional magazine that have covered it, in detail, sourced within the article. I do believe that the delete votes are in good faith, but by any reading of WP:N, it passes the bar, no matter how small someone thinks the event is, or now small the article is. I just hope people aren't ignoring the multiple references just because they don't like it. Dennis Brown (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winston-Salem and Greensboro articles are not being discussed for deletion here. They are very notable. Lexington, North Carolina is also very notable and warrants a dedicated article as well. However this small town public art project doesn't inherent the notability of any of these. You need not worry, the uninvolved, closing admin will consider the whole discussion when determining whether concensus has been reached and if so what it is. Any WP:IDONTLIKEIT and as well WP:ILIKEIT !votes will be filtered out as appropriate.--RadioFan (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has claimed it has inherited the notability from the larger nearby cities, only that the larger nearby cities thought the art initiative was important enough to write about multiple times. My point was to the quality of the sources, ie: coming from the primary newspapers of larger cities, and not just local news rags or the local newspaper, since WP:RS is more concerned with quality instead of quantity. I've been here for a long time, I'm quite aware of the closing process and the requirements of WP:N, btw, so we should just focus on the merits of the arguments instead of worrying about the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not enough 3rd party sources for a local event. If the event becomes more notable in the future then it would warrant a separate article.Mr. BNST (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How many 3rd party sources for a local event would be more appropriate? This would help clarify your stance. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:49, 2 January 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pigs_in_the_City&oldid=1071199306"