Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regina 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 withdraw nomination. Mind matrix 18:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Regina Folk Festival (edit | talk | history  | protect | delete  | links | watch | logs | views) (delete ) – (View log)

Only sources were local in nature, no substantial third party coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC) (削除) *Delete per WP:LOCAL: Events of local interest only are not notable. Tavix (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

• Delete. Insufficiently notable to sustain its own article. It is already covered here Culture in Regina, Saskatchewan#Regina Folk Festival in sufficient detail. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete - non-notable (though I wouldn't mind going myself). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Keep. WP:LOCAL also mentions that it is okay to make articles about local historical events when putting them in the main article would cause size issues (Wikipedia:Subarticle). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]
• (削除) Merge. The coverage in the main article is minimal and it could improve with material from this article. Also, a redirect to point people to the info is appropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]
• Keep Festival held since 1969. Hard to believe it hasn't been covered rather extensively in all these years. Right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Indeed there are substantial Google News results [1]. A forty year festival is notable. I would say almost inherently so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

In fairness upon further inspection many of the google news results were no good. But there is still plenty out there for an article.

We seem to get upset at people with conflicts of interest, but let's not forget for a moment that someone passionate about their work or a project they love may simply be coming here, naming themself after something important in their life, and trying to contribute. Empathy might soften our approach and help to guide them into people who enjoy good faith contributing and learn the rules instead of turning them off Wikipedia immediately by hitting them hard with templates and rule violations. A little human touch and compassion would go a long way. Happy Holidays y'all! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep per some of the 19 news sources listed above and some of the 13 book sources, including passing mentions in at least 2 books that were not directories of events. Article needs improvement and better referencing but not deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC) update to reflect that some of the sources aren't useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Comment I'm still not seeing anything that's beyond the scope of local interest, and none of the news sources seemed to have anything substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC) (削除ここまで) Well, maybe if I'd looked at the article. I say keep now, I'm withdrawing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• This is a well-known festival in Canada, where some big names in music play. WP:LOCAL does not apply, from what I'm seeing. The sources have been tough to wade through: my library database gives me 273 hits for "Regina Folk Festival". But I'm managed to add some of the press coverage just now, including some national coverage. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Well-known and noted festival. Article has much improved references since nomination and I'm certain there are more. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. Following the expansion of the references. Should be linked from the main town article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep as it is well referenced and looks notable now. Tavix (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2008 (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.