Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada's Largest Ribfest


 * 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The result was withdrawn/snow kept. – xeno talk 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Canada's Largest Ribfest

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Procedural nom - previously deleted prod, restored as contested, was prodded again. I think there's notability here, but the article needs love. – xeno talk 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I started this because I thought the person who prodded it twice would opine delete; but since they haven't, this can probably be SNOW closed sooner than the seven days. – xeno talk 23:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   soliloquize 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if and only if the article is cleaned up and sourced. If this is really an event that 175,000 people show up for, then it's certainly notable.  But the article is abysmal, but I suspect it could be cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable. I found a few articles on it after a quick search.  Article needs major work though.    Snotty Wong   express 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. 175,000 is a huge number of attendees. I added a bunch of sources, and I am noticing that a lot of them are in French. Also, the festival seems to have only relatively recently changed its name to "Canada's Largest Ribfest." It seems to have been called variously simply as the "Ribfest," "Burlington Ribfest," "Burlington Rotary Ribfest," and even briefly the "Maple Leaf Pork Rotary Ribfest" based on one source... all those names combined give plenty of sources. — Code  Hydro  03:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, thought I should mention that I reworked the article considerably... be back tomorrow for round 2 ;) — Code  Hydro  03:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Silly and pointless but it does seem to have recvied some coverage over a number of years.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've attended this event a couple of times, and can attest to it being hugely attended. I am of course, not a reliable source though.  But there does exist sufficient coverage from real reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Procedural keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no such thing as a procedural delete nomination. Don't waste time sending something to an AFD unless you honestly believe the article should be deleted.  Then do a brief Google news search to make sure.  That would've prevented this waste of time nomination.  Google news shows coverage, plus any event with that many people showing up, is obviously notable.   D r e a m Focus  21:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See, . – xeno talk 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So the same guy prodded it twice, so you went ahead and sent it to AFD for him, instead of telling him how to do it himself. Don't call it a procedure nomination though.  Just say hey, nominating it for a guy who messed up his attempt.   D r e a m Focus  22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the admin who restored it after being deleted via prod and deprodded it twice, I felt compelled to bring it here to avoid any appearance of impropriety and also break the prod-deprod-prod-deprod cycle. Whether a "procedural nom" was the ideal course of action remains to be seen. – xeno talk 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the AfD. – xeno talk 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.