Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheep to shawl
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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) VernoWhitney (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheep to shawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing here to show that WP:ORG or WP:N are satisfied. Also is no more than a dictionary definition. Edison (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep—dunno where WP:ORG comes into it, this seems to be about a sport, which has a decent number of Google News hits. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 21:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Directory of upcoming events" items from May, 2010 you point out do not satisfy WP:N. Google news archive, going back more years, seems more promising . Edison (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Statesman Journal article on the page I linked to unacceptable? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 22:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. More than a directory "listing of upcoming events" entryEdison (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Statesman Journal article on the page I linked to unacceptable? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 22:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Directory of upcoming events" items from May, 2010 you point out do not satisfy WP:N. Google news archive, going back more years, seems more promising . Edison (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be less a sport and more a crafts contest (the sort of thing you find at a country fair). We have a section at Sheep shearing on contests, so there should be somewhere suitable to at least merge this. Arts and crafts maybe? Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the two RS (one here, one in the article) which are non-trivial coverage. No objection to merging per Carcharoth's idea, either. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The gnews items are sufficient to show it as a fairly accepted type of event. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a real thing, and these types of events get mentioned in the news. Probably a lot more common in the old days then it is now. Dream Focus 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While the AFD is open and there are some eyes on the subject, if someone could make the article more encyclopedic by adding some refs and expanding it beyond a 2 sentence dicdef with one reference it would be helpful in heading off future AFD nominations, if this one gets closed as Keep.Edison (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's notable will head off a future AfD nomination. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish it were that simple. Edison (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish it were that simple. Edison (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear that there's a group/task/force/wikiproject devoted to precisely that purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's notable will head off a future AfD nomination. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep coverage in news for over 40 years,[1] and in hundreds of book[2] show notability per WP:GNG and WP:POTENTIAL for great improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. There are clearly sources here, they just needed to be added. AniMate 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This can definitely be kept and improved. Giacomo 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination, suggest snow Keep Now that some sources have been identified which can be used in the future to expand and improve the article. Edison (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (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.