Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poppykettle Festival

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 Delete. The consensus below is that the coverage is insufficient to support an independent article on this subject. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poppykettle Festival[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. small local festival. 1 gnews hit from the local newspaper. [1]. australian search engine trove reveals just primary sources. [2]. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; unreferenced with no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - For what it's worth:

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/03/24/2387_news.html

http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/ct/calendar/item/8cbb0e2dfa62014.aspx

http://www.cv.vic.gov.au/stories/the-alcoa-poppykettle-festival/

http://www.starnewsgroup.com.au/indy/geelong/248/story/141528.html

Local papers and government tourism websites. It's a borderline case, but I'm calling it a pass of GNG. A festival that's been going for 30 years is more than flash-in-the-pan. Probably little chance of expanding beyond stub status, but that's OK.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not transcluded in the log. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Government tourism sites are not independent reliable sources. Nothing passed local interest coverage, not what I call significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2011 (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.