Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Science Day for Peace and Development

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. JGHowes ^talk 02:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Science Day for Peace and Development[edit]

[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)

PROD was disruptive removed by an IP editor: very irritating. Here was my rationale: No secondary sources suggesting notability, nothing in the article itself suggests notability. This is not the kind of thing that has any inherent notability.

Note also the huge number of tags: this is not salvageable. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please note, PROD templates can never be disruptively removed as that is what they exist for. If someone removes it, then it is disputed and a deletion discussion must take place. Please make sure to read WP:BEFORE. Nothing on Wikipedia has inherent notability, it is all about finding reliable sources. In general, an article can be incubated if it is in disarray and requires substantial work to be ready for the namespace. All that is required to pass notability is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources: Here is an article from the United Nations and another, certainly counts as at least one source, so if anyone wants to take the time to find one other reliable source among the ocean of references that exist to the topic on Google, then there is a good argument to keep the article. There are MANY newspaper articles on the topic, but I do not normally work with newspapers and so am not sure which are considered reliable sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I will be happy to look into this article and topic over the next 1-3 days to see if I can find and add sources and references. Based on a cursory search, there seems to be enough material to improve and save this article.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added several sources to the article to illustrate that there is no lack of reliable secondary sources available to cover notability. A basic search located over 7 million hits, and I used just the a few of the first twenty hits. The article still needs some work and cleanup, but I believe there is little doubt that it should not be deleted, but improved. Thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2020 (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.