Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rural Ramble
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, consensus is that enough notability can be established. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable local event. Ridernyc (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also a conflict of interest since the name used by the editor that created thae article is "RRCoord" Ridernyc (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep minimally notable local event. [1], [2], [3] ("8th annual award-winning"). Article certainly needs work but in view of the fact that WP is not running out of paper it does seem to achieve annual coverage of the event. JJL (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 11:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Same assessment as User:JJL above. I found several quick sources, pretty much the same as the direct above. Yngvarr 11:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep – Does have some coverage from Toronto newspapers as shown here[4] and here [5] Shoessss | Chat 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been wondering at what point the threshold for "too innocuous to care" gets crossed. This seems to be below it. If not, doesn't every annual community event go in? (Sorry, a bit of reverse WP:WAX, but I really am curious.)ΨνPsinu 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Threshold is: Can a verifiable, neutral point-of-view article that does not depend on original research be created. This one has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and that seems to demonstrate that it can. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (shrug) OK, thanks for the answer at any rate. I'm still not able to convince myself that this is encyclopedic (or that it doesn't keep the door opened for more wax in the future than the whole Johnson clan has produced to date for every hot-dog boil out there), but I guess I just won't read 'em then so I won't get bothered. Change mine to Neutral since they appear to be playing by the rules. ΨνPsinu 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Threshold is: Can a verifiable, neutral point-of-view article that does not depend on original research be created. This one has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and that seems to demonstrate that it can. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It looks like it has some minor notability and if so we can write about it. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Cursory search through Google and Google News shows some significant independent coverage. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Psi. GJ (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (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.