Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Women (BBC)

100 Women (BBC)

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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~~ Wikimedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually it's just really odd and very suspicious that an anonymous person did this AfD. I actually think that there is some sort of personal vendetta happening here. I think the AfD tag should be deleted because the nomination for deletion in and of itself should be AfD'd!

Beside the fact that nothing you say is correct. This is not the BBC just advertising their own project. This is the BBC partnering with a whole slew of Wikipedia projects and chapters to improve entries about women on the encyclopedia. This is something GREAT and high profile for Wikipedia. Absolutely wonderful so this AfD is ABSURD. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crazy! The project is not about the BBC, its about 100 women and 70-80% of them are VERY notable. They are notable (in part) because they get coverage from lots of media sources including the BBC. Nearly every country in the world has run articles about whether people from their country is on this list. There are editathons happening around the world involving dozens of Wikipedians and several chapters. Chances of this getting deleted? Zero. This is too silly. Victuallers (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are off the point, Victuallers. By definition, the article is about the BBC's list of women, not the women themselves. The women themselves (those who are notable enough) have their own articles. This notability discussion is about this BBC campaign/list, which does not attract significant coverage in important reliable sources other than the BBC (its creator and promoter). 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to add the independent sources to the article itself. A little digging like I did would have cleared up the matter swiftly. Please look at the main page for sources. Also, when do we let anonymous posters do AfD by proxy?Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: "Any user may suggest deletion of a page for good cause." (Italics theirs.) The IP user specifically reached out for help in starting the AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The BBC is great, the people honored are great, however this article is not an article about the event. It is really just a reposting of the lists. Each person already has her own article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not an opinion poll. The question is are there RS in unrelated media. There are. Not only are there articles in multiple international sources about the program itself, German [1], Spanish [2], English [3], [4], [5]; but within each of the nominees stories (100 each year for multiple years) the program is discussed. Significant coverage is not a single article written on a subject, but rather the weight of coverage in reliable sources over time. Exponentially, at a bare minimum there would be some 400 articles internationally about the program, just in the nominees bios alone. For a small example Hong Kong [6], India [7], [8], [9], [10], Japan [11], Lebanon [12], Mexico [13], Morocco [14], Nepal [15], Nigeria [16], Pakistan [17], Russia [18]. SusunW (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]