Talk:Big Pig Jig
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-11-20. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
My name is Tyrie J. Smith and I am a professor at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College in Tifton, GA. My students are working on research concerning important cultural material that they are familiar with. This material includes all sorts of subjects ranging from the student's home town to local town festivals to African American schools long demolished. The purpose for the assignment is to teach them the importance of thorough research and to provide them a lesson in looking for information in non-traditional places as with oral history or in the local newspaper "morgue." I assure you that all of these projects are "important" and worthy of a home on Wikipedia. This specific article deals with one of the largest barbecue festivals in the US. The Vienna Big Pig Jig is of great importance to the community of Vienna and its neighbors as well as the barbecuing community, which has enjoyed new interest nationwide with the creation of barbecue-specific programming on television (Food Network, PBS, HGTV, Discovery, Bravo, etc.) and an increased interest in this form of cooking by book publishers around the world. If Wikipedia's primary mission is the dissemination of information in the form of an open-access encyclopedia community, then I do not see how this article or others on cultural materials(one on a local Taxidermist comes to mind) violates any "rule" on what is important information? Please reconsider removing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs)
- I realize Wikipedia might seem confusing at first, (please click on the blue words to read the policy/guide they refer to). Wikipedia is not like other sites you may have come across. First, it is an encyclopedia. What this means, is that it is not MySpace, or FaceBook, or a place to host personal webspace, or a place where editors can make articles about anything they wish. Wikipedia has Core policies, such as neutrality, notability, verifiability, etc. What does all of this mean? Well, it means that any article on Wikipedia must demonstrate notability (meaning it must be note worthy, covered by the media, etc.), and have reliable, third-party sources (such as news media articles, magazine/trade journal articles) written about the subject, and the information given in the article must cite those sources to verify it is true. From those sources, information is summarized, paraphrased, condensed, and worded neutrally to make an encyclopedic entry (information cannot be copied from other sites). See Wikipedia's manual of style, layout guide, your first article, article development, and how to edit for assistance. Ariel♥Gold 14:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Smith, your assurance is noted. However, be advised that within Wikipedia, having a fancy title, and assuring people that something is so, means little. Wikipedia has its own rules for notability, and this isn't notable by those rulesMayalld (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- But notability is not the test for speedy deletion, an article only has to claim importance or significance, which this one does. If you really think this deserves deletion as non-notable the take it to AfD and argue the case, but a quick Google search will show you that it will almost certainly be kept as notable because there are multiple reliable sources. I am removing the speedy deletion tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Well, the student responsible did have all of those requirements that you have spoken of. Just thirty minutes ago I looked at the page and he had a number of references - primary and secondary - however, those have mysteriously disappeared. So, I would appreciate it if you would hold of your "execution" while I attempt to reach him and get this information reposted. --Folk smith (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC) One more thing ... the comment about the "fancy title" really gets under my skin. I was just trying to establish a bit of ethos, not flaunt my (laughable) "title."--Folk smith (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- What you were trying to do isn't relevant. The point is that it matters not one jot who you are, or why this article was created. The article stands or falls only on whether it complies with Wikipedia policy. Mayalld (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "references" were not reliable, third-party sources. The majority of them were simply "Interviews with (name)" and thus, not something that can be used. Having heard someone say something, then writing about it, constitutes original research. Reliable sources are things like media coverage, professional/trade journals, etc. If you can find some online news reports by the local TV stations, or newspapers, that would help, both in helping to establish the importance of the event, as well as to verify it. Right now, there is just an invalid URL, and an unverifiable news article from a small paper. I would encourage you to read the policies and guidelines, as they will provide you with sufficient information that will explain the reasons you cannot use personal interviews that were not published anywhere as a reference. Additionally, you may also find the pages about how to properly cite sources helpful. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
