Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Northern Exhibition (2nd nomination)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Exhibition

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relist following a no-consensus closure of the first discussion, in which nobody actually "voted" one way or the other at all. It is still not referenced well enough to clear our notability standards for annual events, as the only "reference" cited here is the event's own self-published history of itself, not a reliable source that's independent of the event organizers — so the existence of the book is not a WP:GNG pass all by itself in the absence of any other sourcing, and I have been unable to find any other solid sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I only found interviews, short articles and minor mentions. The Great Exhibition of the North also seems non-notable. wumbolo ^^^ 09:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some local coverage, such as [1] [2], but nothing good enough to justify a keep !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Appears not to be verifiable due to one source only. Though the official site is listed, there's almost no independent coverage, so even if it is verifiable, it isn't notable per the general notability guideline. Redditaddict6 9 21:53, 6 September 2018 (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.