Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roanoke-Chowan Pork-Fest

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Roanoke-Chowan Pork-Fest}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Roanoke-Chowan Pork-Fest}})

A mere 2 google news hits. Fails GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and North Carolina. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Lazy nom - Nominator should have searched beyond google news. With a few minutes worth of looking, I added 4 WP:RS to put GNG to bed. WP:BEFORE seriously applies. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Please refrain from WP:ADHOM comments. I think an event needs non-primary and non-local sources as per WP:GEOSCOPE, otherwise every local barbeque would get an article.
• :Out of the added sources "Taylor, Holly (23 August 2023). "Pork Fest Revived". Roanoke-Chowan News Herald." is a local source, "Whole Hog Barbeque Series. North Carolina Pork Council" hardly looks independent. [http://www.ncbbq.com/Modules/Events/events.aspx?id=123 this one] is an event listing from a non-independent source and very amateur site which looks almost like a blog. [https://www.thetidewaternews.com/2015/04/04/jefcoat-museum-a-hidden-treasure/ this one] is a line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::as per WP:EVENT, there is no evidence of WP:LASTING effect or more broad national significance as per WP:GEOSCOPE. This is just a locally run barbeque event. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: WP:GNG is demonstrated: Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is well established by the coverage in four independent publications:

::::#Virginia Pilot

::::#Tidewater News

::::#Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

::::#Eastern Living

::::The article doesn't have to pass both WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

::::Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Let's move on from what the nominator could or should have done and focus on policies please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.