Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cygnet Folk 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnet Folk Festival[edit]

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (the only references are self-published). Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Went to http://google.com.au and searched. Found coverage in Mercury1, Mercury2, Mercury3 Tasmania's largest daily. ABC News covers it. More from ABC (Australian BC) here: [1] There is still more coverage here at the site of a local radio station linked to a network: ABC Hobart. Significant coverage here, and the site says all information on it is vetted:[2]. I think we have sufficient coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources, and so the article meets WP:GNG. Churn and change (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the presence of significant coverage in The Mercury, Tasmania's largest newspaper, is good enough for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep not only was it really easy to find significant coverage in The Mercury, I could readily find articles [3] on ABC which covers the festival each year. Sure this stub article needs some love, but in terms of establishing notability of the article this is readily proven. --Breno ^talk 11:19, 24 October 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.