Talk:Feast of the Hunters' Moon

[Untitled]
I've added more links and done some general cleanup, and I believe this now satisfies WP:N. If you disagree, this is the best place to reply. Merenta 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The links you added were to two people's photo albums from their personal websites. Do you really think these meet the verifiability policy? You've got to be kidding me! UnitedStatesian 15:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I previously stated, I believe that this article satisfies WP:N. Since you disagree, perhaps your next step is to open a deletion discussion. I'll be glad to participate. Merenta 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The established nature of the event, which has been held regularly for forty years, and the large size of the crowds it draws lends it sufficient notability IMO. Local media and the TCHA can provide additional verifiability. Huwmanbeing &#9733; 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Article has had substantial work since the 2007 Discussion
I believe that previously noted issues have been resolved

Major Changes September 2010
Novaseminary, the second pass was a lot of good work. There were however, some removals of material which I plan to reverse. It is not the practice to just simply delete material (with no prior tagging or discussion) giving "uncited" as a basis. Doubly so when the accuracy of the material is not contested or questioned. That material was straightforward information about the event. But, nice work on the other items! North8000 (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A good deal more could and should be added. However, to avoid this becoming a promotional site -- and to move the article closer to rather than farther from being a good article -- it should be sourced (WP:RS) and in perspective (WP:UNDUE). Whomever adds material has the burden to show the addition meets policy (WP:BURDEN). Remember, the policy is verifiability, not accuracy. The article had been tagged for months with no new sources added, so nothing was removed "without giving (other editors) time to provide references" per WP:UNSOURCED. Novaseminary (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The top level mission of Wikipedia is accuracy and informativeness. The METHOD to achieve that is verifiability. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The tagged content was the characterization of the performers ("longest" etc.) and I think rightly so and I took it out. The removals that I'm questioning were something else....straightforward information about the event which was never questioned or tagged.  North8000 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire article was tagged since March as unsourced. What info are you talking about? The specific performer info was specifically tagged and, tagged or not, violated WP:UNDUE anyway. Novaseminary (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically everything that was removed except for the characterization of the performers. The performer info was not tagged, the characterization of the performers was. An article level tag for references is not a license to selectively remove anything desired in the article without discussion or tagging. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only other thing I can think of that was removed was the claim that it is one of the biggest fife and pipe gatherings. It might be, but that sort of claim especially needs a source. Find one, add it back in, no problem. Why waste time arguing (sort of) it should be there without a source, rather than finding a source and adding it? The other sentence removed was about the mass gathering of musicians. That struck me as cruft-like and overly focused on this one particular aspect of the festival. But that, too, might be appropriate if a source indicates it is one of the more important aspects of the event (as the source I cited to in the musical performance section mentions the things mentioned in the sentence). The fact that it wasn't mentioned in the three sources cited (2/3 added by me) leads me to believe it might not be as important as the prior version of the article made it seem. Novaseminary (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with leaving out anything that resembles a claim or characterization. My thoughts and statement of intent were about straightforward information that was deleted. North8000 (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)