Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Flea Market


 * 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   delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideilines Davewild (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Florence Flea Market

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article with no notability, and unlikely to be important outside the local area. Harr o 5 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was requested of me by a client, Harro5. Admin UltraExactZZ helped me with it so that it would be correctly encyclopedic.

Please do not delete.

Thank you,

Melissa Mjpeanut26 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpeanut26 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided. Do you have some news stories on it you can cite, say? JJL (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added several links to the page that reference other Websites, as well as paper publications, in which the flea market is listed.

The references include the State of South Carolina's official tourism site, two flea market directories, the flea market's Chamber of Commerce listing, and the official tourism guide published by the city.

Please let me know if anything else needs to be done in order to make this article worthy of keeping.

Thanks for the help given thus far.

Melissa Mjpeanut26 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

SC Secretary of State article 2007 NewsObserver article Will this suffice? I'm sure it's not what my client wants mentioned, but if it will keep the article online, so be it. Melissa Mjpeanut26 (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Mjpeanut26 (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As I indicated to Mjpeanut26, we're going to need some sort of news coverage to show that the site is notable. Visitor's guides can prove that the site exists, which is OK as far as it goes, but we need to show that the market is actually notable - which we don't, currently. In userfying the article, I was hoping that we could take some additional time to find those sources and add them; this version of the article seems premature. I'll see if I can find anything. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment A news search turns up a bit, and there is at least a passing mention in "Romanticism and Behavior: Collected Essays II". But the local news site doesn't seem to get any hits on this and everything I find in the news is from 1975 and seem to be in passing (can't tell: behind pay walls).  I tend to think flea markets that have a long history are notable, but I can't find enough to prove this is that.  Hobit (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)*'''
 * comment I did find two articles that covered a raid on counterfeit goods. Websites below:
 * Comment those seem like passing mentions. Is there something that focuses on just this flea market, so as to indicate why it is more noteworthy than others? Bear in mind that once it's up your client will have no control over what's posted there--good, bad, or indifferent. JJL (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So far, those are unfortunately the only news articles referencing it. I've let my client know about the situation, and he is trying to come up with something more direct.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.   —Dravecky (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence of notability in the article and comments suggest that the originator is unable to find the "significant coverage in secondary sources", which are "reliable, and independent of the subject".  A news story that a crime was committed there once is surely "trivial or incidental coverage", "not sufficient to establish notability".  Quotes from Notability (organizations and companies).
 * In addition I'm concerned to hear that the originator has a "client", suggesting a clear conflict of interest. This is "very strongly" discouraged.  Richard Pinch (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- Looking it up, it is merely listed as a flea market on several sites without saying much about it aside from its phone number and location. As for the other articles, it focuses more on the counterfeiting than the flea market itself. ~  Bella   Swan ? 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Fails WP:RS. This flea market is not notable. Cunard (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions.   —Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as it meets verifiability just fine but strongly appears to fail notability. - Dravecky (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - is anyone able to get ahold of a copy of this document ? It might have possibilities. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:13, 3 September 2008 (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.