Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Women (BBC): Difference between revisions
Keep |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
* '''Keep.''' This is absurd. This page should be kept. I think there is a misunderstanding about this entry. It is very high profile, is the subject of a BBC article, and Women in Red as well as BBC UK are spearheading this effort. Deleting this article also makes Wikipedia look terrible. Just a bad idea all around. KEEP! -- Erika aka [[User:BrillLyle|BrillLyle]] ([[User talk:BrillLyle|talk]]) 16:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC) |
* '''Keep.''' This is absurd. This page should be kept. I think there is a misunderstanding about this entry. It is very high profile, is the subject of a BBC article, and Women in Red as well as BBC UK are spearheading this effort. Deleting this article also makes Wikipedia look terrible. Just a bad idea all around. KEEP! -- Erika aka [[User:BrillLyle|BrillLyle]] ([[User talk:BrillLyle|talk]]) 16:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::The problem is the project is made by the BBC: they are just advertising their own project. Where is the decent coverage in sources <b>independent of the subject</b>? There is very little of substance. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059|2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059|talk]]) 16:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:40, 6 December 2016
- 100 Women (BBC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AfD created by request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The requesting anonymous user posted the following on the article's talk page:
I have nominated this page for deletion. The campaign does not meet the notability requirement that 'the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The references on the page are just to official 'BBC 100 Women' campaign pages (certainly not independent of the subject). Searching further, there is little evidence that the campaign is influential enough to be given substantial coverage in independent third-party sources. Compare this to the attention given to Time Person of the Year, for example. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not conviced it could not survive as a list; it should be looked into further before the axe falls. Kierzek (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support deletion as the nominator. As it stands, the campaign's article is little more than trivia: a long list of names without much context. The campaign has not gathered adequate attention from independent, reliable sources to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is absurd. This page should be kept. I think there is a misunderstanding about this entry. It is very high profile, is the subject of a BBC article, and Women in Red as well as BBC UK are spearheading this effort. Deleting this article also makes Wikipedia look terrible. Just a bad idea all around. KEEP! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is the project is made by the BBC: they are just advertising their own project. Where is the decent coverage in sources independent of the subject? There is very little of substance. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)