Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedian of the Year

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 keep. Some of the commenters have suggested a move to Wikipedia:Wikimedian of the Year but there's not a consensus for that move here; it could be proposed as a WP:RM. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedian of the Year

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the award itself since the last AfD. Only passing mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This information needs to stay, one reason - Wikipedia:Inherent notability. But according to nomination reason WP:SIGCOV, maybe it can be shifted to a different namespace such as Wikipedia rather than main namespace. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Wikimania. Source searches, including ones under its former name of "Wikipedian of the Year" are providing very little coverage. Merging will improve the suggested merge target article.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, struck my !vote above. Most coverage is about recipients of the award, but a sufficient amount of this exists to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sufficient references, seems notable enough for an article/list. @DiplomatTesterMan: this article was moved to Wikipedia: namespace before (after the previous deletion discussion), but a new article on it was started a few years later so it got merged back into the mainspace version, I'm not convinced that the same wouldn't just happen again next year. @Northamerica1000: Why do you think 'Wikimania' is the relevant article here rather than e.g., 'Jimmy Wales' who decides the award, or 'Wikipedia community' for the recipient group? It is awarded at Wikimania, but it's only a small-ish part of Wikimania (and is much better as a distinct article IMO). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are clearly independent sources focusing mostly on the recipients of the award, which combined together make it sufficiently notable to merit an article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or if not, move to the Wikipedia: namespace - clear sourcing and notability to the Wikipedia community even if this AfD succeeds Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 18:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "hey! why haven't i been nominated for this?" "what coola, for your WP contributions of book articles about ducks and fluffy animals?" "ok, fair point." Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2018 (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.