Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Women (BBC)

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. Katie^talk 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100 Women (BBC)[edit]

(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]

As was pointed out below, any user is permitted to start an AfD. TimothyJosephWood 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have the right to say I think it is misguided, wrong, and a total embarrassment for Wikipedia. Just because things can be done doesn't mean that it should be humored. I oppose this vehemently. It is not helpful or productive. There are other articles that need to be assessed and queued for deletion. This nomination clearly illustrates the problem with AfD. It's the worst part of Wikipedia. Deletionism and total ignorance of community outreach and initiatives to make Wikipedia better. It also illustrates sexism as well. Whether the nominator intended this or not that is what is happening here. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brill, you are assuming facts not shown in evidence at this point as to there being something more than is shown. The AfD system is working here. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD does not only work to delete non-notable articles, but also to establish firm consensus to keep notable ones. That you are personally offended by the nomination is noted, but not particularly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 18:31, 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]

Thanks, NatGertler, I did miss that! However, I'd submit that at least a proper WP:BEFORE was not done before this article was sent to AfD. There are a ton of RS which are independent to BBC. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep 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]

Changed my vote to keep after secondary sources were provided. Article remains mainly a reposting of BBC's lists, but topic itself is clearly now shown to be notable.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:32, 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]
Keep (edit conflict) -- Yes many of the women are notable, but being celebrated in a radio series does not make them all notable. The article is about people featured in the series, so that it is really about the series, not the people. Perhaps this is a case where it is valuable to use an older purpose of list articles, as a means of identifying (by redlinks) articles that ought to be written. It is probably more valuable for SusunW to apply effort to creating those missing articles than plastering this AFD page with references. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of people that the BBC includes as being notable is certainly notable on its own right. But as Megalibrarygirl and SusanW mentions there is content in reliable sources that explains the list. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a list, not a "series," I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list precedes a series of programs about women held over a three week period. It is a much broader subject than just the list. SusunW (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay more problematic will be Category:BBC 100 Women. I don't believe being on a BBC list is surfficiently defining for the notable women so-named, but that's a matter for Cfd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is useful in promoting the project, which has received wide publicity, it is also currently being used as an anchor for the BBC 100 women edit-a-thon, people can come to it, and create wikipedia pages for some of the people on the lists who do not have pages. It is useful for people to access other pages generally, but especially in the middle of an edit-a-thon supported by wikimedia volunteers, deleting it would be bizarre.81.105.187.71 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable article about an event the BBC holds annually, and which receives much promotion. I would question the motives of the nominator who originally posted on the article's talk page. This is Paul (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, but the category creator is an administrator who surely knows WP:OC, both WP:OCAWARD and WP:TOPTEN. The category is clearly non-defining, in my opinion, and I've taken the matter to Cfd.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable list as that is what it really is in present form; it does need some work but that can be cured. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep There appears to be a clear strong consensus to keep the article. There does not seem to be a need to keep this open for an extended period of time. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 6 December 2016 (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.