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 Keep. Nominator has changed his stance because the numerous sources and changes made since the initial nomination that clearly establish notability using reliable sources. This is a non-admin closure. spryde | talk 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pig jig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable barbeque, referenced by a non-internet link to an unknown local paper, and a 404-link to a supposed history page. Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non Notable event that is verging on just being an advert. Pedro :  Chat  14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This Google News archive search is actually pretty promising. Article needs a lot of cleanup, however. JavaTenor (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The issue with the majority of the results with the archive search are they are pay-to-view articles, and thus, can't be used unless there is an excerpt that can sufficiently cover the article's content. Ariel♥Gold 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is incorrect; all we need for a valid source is the correct publication information for the article. The link is just a convenience to the reader, who may have access to the archive through Lexis-Nexis, a library, or some other similar service (or else we could never cite books, scientific journals, or newspaper articles more than a year old!) JavaTenor (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ArielGold is mistaken in asserting that newspaper archive items may not be used as referenced if payment is required. They are perfectly valid. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:SOURCES. Scientific journals also require payment to view, and they are the gold standard as references. Edison (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant by my statement. I meant that they couldn't be used to verify some of the content. Such as the quotation given by a competitor, or the statement that "everyone knows each other's name", things like that, those statements can't be sourced by the list of archived news results. I apologize if I did not word it carefully enough to convey my intent. I'm fully aware that non-online sources can be used, I use them often myself, I just said the archive list couldn't reference all the content in the article. Ariel♥Gold 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood your statement. I agree that the snips viewable free do not verify many of the details. Edison (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It is not an advert. As far as the sources go, someone removed the sources that were in place when the article was first posted. When my student called me to first look at the page, prior to the deletion request, there were no less than five sources, including both primary (two interviews) and secondary sources. Something reeks here. So, I request that the administrators give the student until this afternoon to repair his article. I ask that you put some kind of restriction on the article and allow only the original poster to make changes.--Folk smith (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • responseThe "references" that were removed were not WP:V or WP:RS. The creator of the article doesn't WP:OWN it, so no to allowing only the creator to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs)

The issue is not so much that this is an advertisement, but that it does not appear to be an event that has received widespread coverage, and thus, the information given in the article cannot be verified. Verifiability is one of the core pillars here at Wikipedia. As to the sources, there were no reliable, third party sources given. The sources given upon page creation were: Mitchell, Mike. Personal Interview. 11-15-07; Crane, Billie Ruth. Personal interview. 11-16-07; the invalid URL, and Jimesnes, John. Pig Jig Time. Cordele Dispatch. Retrieved November 15, 2007. As I mentioned in the talk page, personal interviews that have not been documented anywhere are considered original research, and not verifiable. This is why they were removed, because they cannot be confirmed, and they were not reliable sources. Ariel♥Gold 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Well, I've had my student repost his secondary sources. I hope they are to your liking. I would also like to add that by not including primary sources you are greatly limiting good information about important subjects. As you have noted that you "don't care" who I am or my title, I should remind you that the secondary sources that you covet so much are written by folks like me - if my position as a professional, degreed scholar doesn't matter to you, why should the articles written by my colleagues matter. --Folk smith (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• response I guess that you missed out on the bit that explains about primary and secondary sources too. Mayalld (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This event satisfies WP:N on the basis of substantial coverage in numerous articles in a variety of newspapers over a period of many years, as shown by the Google News archive search referenced above by JavaTenor. Edison (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2: If we do keep this article, we should unsalt Big Pig Jig and move it there as the correct title. JavaTenor (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Yes, we should "unsalt" that entry name. That was the name my student originally posted his article under. In regard to primary v/s secondary sources, yes I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies; however, I think that more discussion on this topic is necessary in the future. There are a number of subjects that rely heavily on primary sources and these should not be prohibited based on this. I think you will find that many disciplines are now seeing the benefits of such resources in scholarship. As a folklorist I can tell you that my discipline relies almost entirely on primary sources for much of our research. Just a suggestion to the Wikipedia admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 15:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting my initial comments, I've been scouring for verifiable sources, and while I cannot verify much of the article, I have verified enough to keep it. It was noted by The Travel Channel as being #6 on the top 10 barbecue competitions in the world. It was covered by The Food Network as one of the top barbecue competitions in the country. These should satisfy notability, the rest will need to be cited with proper sources, especially the quotations given, but I have added 7 reliable sources, and I'd agree that the page should be moved to Big Pig Jig, as that is indeed, the full name (although not the "official" name, which is the "Slosheye Trail Big Pig Jig" ). I hope this is helpful. Ariel♥Gold 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• response I appreciate your help. The student is going to continue developing this entry. As for the quotes, those come from personal interviews. So, unless wikipedia is willing to allow for primary sources, I guess those will have to be removed. Again, thank you. This is a learning experience for my students and myself. However, I take issue with the implications of some of those above who insist on labeling me as someone who did not research the rules and regulations of this site. I assure you that I did. However, I am no wikipedia expert and I would appreciate a bit of understanding in the future. There is no need for a Spanish Inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply The evidence is against you on this. The article as originally written failed on WP:V and [[WP:RS]. Either you were unaware of these policies or you were disingenuous in the discussion that followed. Mayalld (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just enough notability seems to have been established, as per JavaTenor's comment Big Pig Jig needs to be unsalted and the page moved to there. RMHED (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Big Pig Jig, which is the name of the event. This is a notable event, with the above mentioned coverage by various TV and print media. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are now quite a few reliable sources establishing the notability of this event. spryde | talk 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just realized that I hadn't formalized my position on it - given the sources we've been able to find, this event appears to be notable. It's the official Georgia state pork barbecue championship cookoff! ;) I'll start the DRV for Big Pig Jig (or should it be Slosheye Trail Big Pig Jig?) once this AFD completes, if Keep is the result. JavaTenor (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and move) Now that notability appears to have been verified. --DAJF (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changed to keep) per the hard work above to establish notability. Good work. Pedro :  Chat  12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability now established Mayalld (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2007 (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.