Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Cultural Centre Vancouver: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:46, 19 August 2017

Italian Cultural Centre Vancouver

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. It exists and I'm sure it does good work, but doesn't have the coverage. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years now, hopefully we can get the issue resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sure it's frustrating but using AfD to bump inherently notable articles into getting better sourcing isn't the purpose of AfD is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why is it inherently notable? LibStar (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, In ictu oculi, I'm not sure what to make of that. It makes assumptions that are simply untrue about my reasons for nominating - please stick to commenting on the notability of the article. Boleyn (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading "It exists and I'm sure it does good work, but doesn't have the coverage. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years now, hopefully we can get the issue resolved." maybe I misread "doesn't have the coverage", since when I clicked on sources the coverage was too plentiful if anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in my nomination says my plan is 'to bump inherently notablr articles into getting better sourcing' by taking them to AfD. I don't thin it's notable, I respect your right to disagree, but please don't just make unsubstantiated attacks. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG . No inherent notability . Gnews shows routine announcements such as holding events or local coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: and GBooks? none of these book sources?. What about p.74 of Nationalism from the Margins: Italians in Alberta and British Columbia By Patricia K. Wood? To me p.74 on its own would provide notability for this building and association. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

most of the gbooks mentions are 1 line mentions. The Wood book you mention is a one paragraph mention . WP:SIGCOV requires detailed coverage. I stand by my delete !vote. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ummm, I was going to talk about WP:SIGCOV, but I note that the point is taken, BTW, I have added the references to the article. Replying to the point raised by LibStar, there are no absolute thresholds for coverage. If multiple, independent and reliable sources mention the subject of the article, even then the subject is notable, and yes, the subject is covered in multiple books available on Google Books. Maybe, the content available via reliable sources is not sufficient to make this an A Class article, but that is OK. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are going to stay as stubs for a long time. But, coming back to the main point, the subject of the article has received significant independent coverage to be Notable. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :::{{ping|LibStar}} and GBooks? [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Italian+Cultural+Centre%22+vancouver&source=lnms&tbm=bks&biw=1308&bih=918 none of these book sources?]. What about [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SDRjRtxSMzkC&pg=PA74 p.74 of Nationalism from the Margins: Italians in Alberta and British Columbia By Patricia K. Wood]? To me p.74 on its own would provide notability for this building and association. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 06:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 ::: most of the gbooks mentions are 1 line mentions. The Wood book you mention is a one paragraph mention . [[WP:SIGCOV]] requires detailed coverage. I stand by my delete !vote. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 07:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - Ummm, I was going to talk about [[WP:SIGCOV]], but I note that the point is taken, BTW, I have added the references to the article. Replying to the point raised by [[User:LibStar|LibStar]], there are no absolute thresholds for coverage. If multiple, independent and reliable sources mention the subject of the article, even then the subject is notable, and yes, the subject is covered in multiple books available on Google Books. Maybe, the content available via reliable sources is not sufficient to make this an A Class article, but that is OK. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are going to stay as stubs for a long time. But, coming back to the main point, the subject of the article has received significant independent coverage to be [[WP:NOT | Notable]]. --[[User:Wikishagnik|Wikishagnik]] ([[User talk:Wikishagnik|talk]]) 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)