Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stitches & Craft Show

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. Secret ^account 04:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Stitches & Craft Show

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

Not notable topic with no reliable sources. Andrew³²⁷ 18:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits one being WP article. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Lacks RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone had a chance to look through Australian craft magazines? I expect that is where the best coverage would be. --99of9 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why was this relisted? LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the most obvious location for reliable in-depth coverage? (Not GNews... industry magazines). --99of9 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES, in any case you need wider coverage than industry magazines. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply asking if the most obvious due diligence has been done. Nobody has answered me so far. Please cite policy for your latter claim - the GNG does not include the concept of wider coverage. For example, many biological species are only discussed within the context of academic taxonomy journals. Prominent national craft events would usually only be discussed in industry magazines and by the guilds. --99of9 (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide 5 indepth sources I will happily change my !vote. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I conducted an extensive lit review and found one fluff piece in a small town paper that exclusively describes the event. The article then invites readers to submit the most creative thing they have ever made for a chance at a free ticket. Most of the references in the press have been in passing, like these two:

Milton Ulladulla Times (21 November 2012): "The Little Red Riding Hood-inspired gown and cape will be among the state’s best textile projects to be exhibited at the Stitches and Craft Show at Rosehill Gardens Racecourse in March next year."

The NewsMail (28 November 2011): "At one venue, Grandmother's Garden in Gordontown, the quilters were greeted by the proprietor, who had visited Bundaberg for the Stitches and Craft show last October and commented very favourably on the city."

In summary, even professional databases don't indicate subject notability. Andrew³²⁷ 05:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds like a solid search. Delete. --99of9 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing that stops this being a Speedy A7 is the claim to being the countries oldest craft fair, but that is sourced to an events listing, which are typically created by the promoters without any editorial oversight by the publication. It does not come close to passing WP:EVENT. LGA _talk^edits 23:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Were this on a small Wiki for arts and crafts, it might be notable. For Wikipedia itself, no. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2013 (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.