Sci-Fi on the Rock: Article is heavily promotional and crufty.  Courcelles ( talk ) 16:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I put the more citations needed tag for this involvement.  CastJared ( talk ) 16:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no demonstration of notability, fails GNG.  Does appear to be crufty.  Out of the 7 sources, 2 are primary sources and the remaining 5 are from IMDb, which is unreliable per WP:RSP .  — Czello 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm gonna remove IMDb citations because they're not realiable.  CastJared ( talk ) 16:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : All removed, keeping 2 primary sources.  CastJared ( talk ) 16:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We need secondary sources for notability, not primary Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, we need secondary citations.  CastJared ( talk ) 17:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Stubify - I was considering AfDing it mere minutes before you nominated it.  The article has been a 15 year project by the organisation to promote their festival.  The CBC.ca articles may very well be paid promotions, but with no overwhelming evidence I consider them to count as significant independent coverage.  DatGuy Talk Contribs 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I think it is now stubbed.  CastJared ( talk ) 19:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Events ,  and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete From the article history, its clear this has long term G11 issues and has been properly stubed, but I have no doubt the promo will creep or flood back in if kept.  Subject does not has IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  BEFORE showed local news promos, nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk 03:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete or draftity .  It exists and has been noticed by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation : [18] .  That does not seem enough to meet WP:NEVENT .  But technically, one more media mention like this might help this meet GNG - until we run into WP:NOTNEWS .  There's mention by SaltWire Network , I guess, but I think it's too little.  Do we have any evidence this event was noticed outside local media, which is what both of those mentions are?  I see that it was a very long piece of WP:OR on local sci-fi history, unreferenced, now stubified.  I am afraid the best recommendation I have for the authors is to get this history published somewhere - there are sci-fi zins, magazines, and even academic journals that may be interested in this.  After we have an in-depth article about this in some reliable, outside source, then this could be restored.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I was *this* close to pushing the delete button, but it seems as if some editors feel that they are one good source away from notability, so I'm giving them bit more time.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think the consistent coverage over several years by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Saltwire (the website of the St. John's Evening Telegram and several other newspapers under the same ownership in Atlantic Canada) is enough to establish notability.  Both are reliable sources.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I concur with Eastmain - sustained coverage in WP:RS sufficient to establish notability.   Article has been cleaned up.  Resonant Dis tor tion 15:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article is now well-sourced, and could probably be expanded to some extent.  — SamX [ talk · contribs · he/him] 03:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting again as recent participants in this AFD discussion seem to view the recent additions as addressing the concerns of those advocating deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the added sources are pretty routine, and they only come from two publications.   I still do not believe GNG is met with only two publications offering any coverage.   As GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."  Courcelles ( talk ) 13:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus