Talk:Greasestock

CSD
I think this CSD nomination is inappropriate. The article is well-organized, the subject is notable, and sources are provided. Frank |  talk  19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this article, I agree the tag is erroneous. The article is ineligible for CSD A7 with sources from The New York Times and The Daily News. MrPrada (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree it should be kept. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure this qualifies as notable. There is a lack of significant coverage of the topic, and there are errant/unsupported claims made. There are hundreds of such events in the country. It's claimed in the article that this is the largest event of its kind in the US, which is factually incorrect (the Midwest Renewable Energy Association Fair is), and the stated source does not confirm this claim either. The links are questionable, as there is substantial commercial content on them. I think DMOZ, the open directory, would better site from which to link this event.--E8 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the appropriate place for you to take this would be prod (which I will decline), and then AfD. CSD A7 is incorrect. MrPrada (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Request withdrawn. The NYT article did not support the "largest" claim. Was that from another one of the sources?--E8 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was from another website. After careful reading I think it was a bit of an exaggerated claim on their part. There are numerous sources for this, I will try and get some others up. MrPrada (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, nice work. Apologies for not noticing your recent construction and templating you :/. I've reverted all related changes I made.--E8 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's alright, I should have placed a tag at the top of the page. Thank you for patrolling new pages, hopefully we can contribute and take this stub and make it even better. MrPrada (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by my CSD nomination. The event had minimal attendance and was ephemeral, but proximity to notable publishers, timing, and a bit of promotional aptitude was all that was needed to establish notability. Further, since the initial CSD, notability guidelines have been adjusted and now require "significant coverage"; given that cited sources all parrot the same interview information (and use the exact same wording - they're covering PR, not the event), I question whether notability was ever established. I can list number of similar, niche events with 'significantly' larger attendance counts, decades of annual events, and that are ongoing, that can't crack the notability requirements; this was, and continues to be, a failure of the notability guidelines that is biased against areas that lack media coverage.E8 (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greasestock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529043219/http://www.greasestock.org/images/GreasestockMay08.jpg to http://www.greasestock.org/images/GreasestockMay08.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)