Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdependence day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interdependence day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable "holiday" Corvus cornixtalk 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ok. I don't think so Interdependence Day is not a holiday - nor does it say it is. and thats really rather rude. This is a nonprofit sponsored international event that includes participants from the realms of scholars, politicians, artists, and young people seeking to find solutions to some of the biggest global problems of our time. Its name happens to be Interdependence Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CivWorld (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only one source and can't see notability in article. Looneyman (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any references for this. Original research? I agree with nom and above. Lady Galaxy 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this call.
| “ | In the year 2000, a small group of scholars, civic and political leaders, and artists from a dozen nations, | ” |
I hardly think a collection of prominent individuals from a dozen nations would try to stage something non-notable, especially in prestigious cities such as Rome (and Brussels in the future). Keep this article, who knows the heights this event may reach in the future? It's early days at this point. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to say this, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... Lady Galaxy 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm not, I guess we just don't see eye-to-eye. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing. Corvus cornixtalk 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I just noticed: The link for the website of the "day" is to a website called CivWorld. The same name as the creator of the article. Conflict of interest. Corvus cornixtalk 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and particularly per nom at 20:40 immediately above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepweak delete: A few of the hits at GoogleScholar look like analysis/coverage of this annual gathering of luminaries. (Although most of the 34 hits look useless. Happy browsing!) ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep: Capable of being sourced, over 100 hits in Google News archive. COI is an issue though. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please don't just wave your hand and say it could be sourced, please provide those sources. Corvus cornixtalk 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:N "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
- Per WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". If you can't find reliable sources, then WP:V comes into play, and just expecting reliable sources to magically show up is wishful thinking. We might as well just shut down AfD and follow the logic of "capable of being sourced" to its logical conclusion. Anything is "capable" of being sourced if nobody wants to bother looking for the sources. Corvus cornixtalk 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question raised by the nomination is not whether the article is accurate but whether the subject is notable. The bar is set at the rather low "likely that sources could be found". No-one has yet suggested that one can't find them: I don't see any evidence that anyone has looked hard. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I need to retract part of that, per the comment below, which I hadn't read carefully. Someone has looked. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question raised by the nomination is not whether the article is accurate but whether the subject is notable. The bar is set at the rather low "likely that sources could be found". No-one has yet suggested that one can't find them: I don't see any evidence that anyone has looked hard. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". If you can't find reliable sources, then WP:V comes into play, and just expecting reliable sources to magically show up is wishful thinking. We might as well just shut down AfD and follow the logic of "capable of being sourced" to its logical conclusion. Anything is "capable" of being sourced if nobody wants to bother looking for the sources. Corvus cornixtalk 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:N "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
- Then please don't just wave your hand and say it could be sourced, please provide those sources. Corvus cornixtalk 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Changed my vote above to weak delete: Instead of might be notable, I am thinking might not. Looking more closely at the GoogleScholar hits, they all appear to be either off-topic or mere mentions. From major news outlets, I got nothing. There is some light coverage in obscure sources: Third World Traveller Sep 12, 2003[1]; Bucks County Courier Times, Sep 16, 2003[2] (criticism); UN Chronicle, Mar 1, 2004[3]; Electric City, Sep 9, 2004 (local)[4]; Phi Delta Kappan, Nov 1, 2006[5]. Existence is readily verified (E.g. USC Center on Public Diplomacy[6] but notability seems lost in the limbo of big shots doing grassroots organizing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails its notability check, at this point. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 2 September 2008 (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.