Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedian of the year
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 Move to Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year. Legoktm (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedian of the year (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)
I do not see any reliable 3rd party sources covering this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about this, this, this or this?
- Theguyfromhere (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure daily dot is reliable
- Wikimedia blog is not independent
- Wikipediocracy is a blog, not particularly reliable.
- is a student newspaper.
- I do not see generally massive press coverage of this, and editors need to be mindful that Wikipedia is not as important as you think it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it's your point, I don't see generally massive press coverage for 90% of the stuff Wikipedia has an article about ;)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A bit difficult all around, but in the end the one source is just about the one incident of the prize money not being given. I hope this is corrected, but the notability of the award itself is not established. Borock (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also consider that if Bill Gates named a "Microsoft Employee of the Year" that would probably not get an article since everything we need to know is already in the title, although this one is (only) slightly less obvious. Borock (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year, because, duh.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Maybe it would be appropriate to merge this information into the broader article about Wikimania. If not, then I agree with S Marshall's proposal to move to Wikipedia space. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to W-space per S Marshall. There's clear value to the project to keep this, but not in encyclopedic form. With the sources available now, it appears to only interest those who follow Wikipedia inside baseball. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to project namespace per above. The Daily Dot looks reasonable, but if that's all there is then...nope. Ansh666 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move per Marshall. Although there are many articles related to Wikipedia (see Category:Wikipedia), this one does not seem to have enough reliable, independent sources. ~HueSatLum 22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think this is notable, yet. delete/move/merge/whatever. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:56, 19 August 2013 (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.