Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverdale Park Farmers 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. As identified in the debate there is a single reliable source on this. On studying the source, I agree that it is at the most trivial level - it is mere factual reporting and does not talk about anything that makes this farmers' market interesting, but it does reveal that it has a grand total of 15 (!) vendors; it is just a piece of local cover. The other points regarding the content of the article are also very true. I'm not sure this couldn't have been speedied as spam requiring a total rewrite, to be honest. -Splash - tk 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Riverdale Park Farmers Market

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

Leaving aside the almost spammy advertising, this article is about a run-of-the-mill farmers' market. It's not the oldest, the biggest, the most colourful or anything that makes it anything more than just a farmers' market like thoudands of others all over the world. Emeraude (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are a couple sources, but they appear highly local in nature. There isn't anything notable here that I see. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps not very colorful, but two good references. If the Washington Post thinks that the market is notable, it probably is. --Eastmain (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep it technically does meet the notability guidelines as it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. You could make an argument against some of the local sources, but the Washington Post article is fairly significant. Mr Senseless (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Washington Post article is headed "By Maya T. Prabhu, Gazette (??) Staff Writer", whatever that means. And it's about as trivial as it gets. Incidentally, the other linked article is by the same writer and in the same words, so not exactly multiple sources either. Emeraude (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the two sources given are written by the same person and contain the same information, some of it verbatim. I can't consider that to be multiple sources. faithless   (speak)  07:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, spammy, both sources are largely identical to each other, so I don't really think this is "multiple" enough to confer notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:37, 9 March 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.