Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Renaissance Faire

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. People disagree about the quality of the sources, including the newly-added ones. Sandstein 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Renaissance Faire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article's references from reliable news media are more than adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It really depends on how someone views local sources. To me, adequate would be substantial coverage out of the general area. The sources that you added are from Florence, Alabama where the fair is at or are trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild Keep There's an Alabama Magazine article from 2007 in GNews that seems fairly detailed, other are simply travel guides or the like. That 2007 article and the TV news coverage would seem to be just enough to make it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One or two local news reports, the rest of the sources are general reporting and the fair is just mentioned (but not featured), or non RS from the Faire website. IMHO - Not enough to establish WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Those newly added sources are routine coverage. 2 and 6 are outright promotional. This is a WP:REFBOMB. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, a couple of mentions in the local press about a local event is not SIGCOV. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Despite my due diligence, I cannot find broader significant coverage outside of some promotional/advert stuff in local publications or passing mentions. Not enough to convince me this faire is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Missvain (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources seem sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Granted, they are positive and not critical, but they do contain some substantive information, but they don’t strike me as particularly promotional for coverage of a local festival.–Chaser (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge to Florence, Alabama#Festivals, where it is already briefly covered. As stated a couple times above, the sources are largely routine or promotional coverage, which does not really meet the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. However, it is already covered as one of the events on the main article on Florence - redirecting there, at the very least, makes sense, and some of the sources can probably be merged over there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets my reading of WP:GNG. Sources are plentiful and fine, and spread between TV, Magazines, and Newspapers. There is a substantial amount of coverage, as indicated by ten plus pages of google hits. It's also been around for 36 years, so there's that. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Bene: I have added additional wider-coverage references, partially re-written the article, and expanded it by 35%. There are a lot more untapped references and info out there. The article needs some more editing work and added content, not deletion. Was BEFORE even considered here? Wondering, GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GenQuest I don't appreciate WP:BEFORE being mentioned. My nomination said that I searched for references. Please AGF. On top of it, I am a long-time AfD contributor and most of my nominations have a delete consensus. I also see that Missvain had issues finding coverage as well. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The recent addition of newer sourcing has helped make it credible.— Maile (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the sources that have been and have been added to the article demonstrating passing WP:GNG. Claiming this is of only "local" interest is not only not accurate, but the term "local" is so ambiguous. Local to just the town near the faire? To the counties adjacent to it? The entire state? In the latter's case, it's not just "local." Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oakshade It was never ambiguous. The sources in the article were only from the city that hosts the fair for much of the AfD. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -I looked at this again to see if I was going to revise my delete vote...and I can't see any reason to. As far as the RS articles go, there are two links to local TV channels, there is a dead link to "rocketcitymoms.com"...the rest are general articles discussing festivals where it is just mentioned, (including on a list of 48 festivals to see in Alabama).. and links to its own website and some renfair page. There is no substantive independent RS substantiating this as being notable beyond the local level, and in fact, not even a lot of local material either. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2022 (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.