Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1Lib1Ref


 * 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. I think I've seen enough. I wanted a bit more discussion about sources, but I think it's clear that more discussion probably isn't going to help things along, and the atmosphere of the discussion is devolving. The consensus is that significant coverage exists about this topic in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

1Lib1Ref

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unless and until, Google is playing up, I (with with my limited access to certain American libraries), am not seeing an iota of decent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.

Some of the current sources (including ) belong(s) to WMF and whilst providing accurate information about the event, are non-independent and consequently do not lead to passage of any notability. A blog source, though hosted on diglib.org is written by a Wikipedian, to promote the event and whilst usable, fails to establish the rigor of passage of notability. Two of the remaining sources, from library-associations, are (largely) event-circulars which fails to prove anything beyond the existence of the event. One is a library-blog covering about  how a few enthusiasts did participate in it, which seems to have been written after some gentle prodding by the organizers.......

Barring a lone NPR source, I did not manage to retrieve anything (other than unreliable blogzines et al) that covers the event significantly and that proves the notability of the event beyond the circle of WP editors. ~ Winged Blades Godric 11:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets GNG; the nom needs to find a better search engine. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Andy, you ought to do better.Sources, please....... ~ Winged Blades Godric 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is notable and significant events affecting it are notable. It's not unreasonable for an encyclopedia to lean towards covering its own history, as long as it does so in a neutral and verifiable way. --agr (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm notable.....My parents are notable.....All the teachers who taught me in my montessori are notable....My brother's would-be grand-childrens' spouses are notable....Are you fucking serious?! ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And, we can certainly cover our own history, as much as we like, in the Wikipedia namespace. ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I get that you disagree, but it is unnecessary to use aggressive language in order to make your point. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep while borderline, there's enough coverage and/or mentions out there for me.      (Also, there's nothing in policy that prevents us from covering notable on-wiki events.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ed, that's a straw-man.Unless and until you wish to state that you are in favor of bending our notability guidelines for covering on-wiki events, your last line is nonsensical.And, well routine mentions of an event do not make notability.But, then again, it's insanely difficult to delete any article about WP from WP, provided iy has garnered some specks of scattered mentions here and there.03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Not that super-notable subject, but I believe this is notable more than thousands of professional footballers stub that we host. Also found this Magazine's coverage substantive. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been a pretty decent participant at AfDs to know that other stuff/crap exists and that it's almost always a non-argument.And, we surely disagree about the significance of the source as to lending the subject a credible passage of GNG. ~ Winged Blades Godric 03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, could this be a redirect to the libraries wikiproject? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as not having continued coverage. All sources can be construed as announcing a near-future 1Lib1Ref (and maybe mentioning the last one), and very short-term post-event coverage. w umbolo   ^^^  13:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Speedy without prejudice...... per WP:SNOWBALL.  VitalPower | talk  19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: The discussion is definitely leaning towards keep based on a head-count of voters, but I would appreciate just a bit more discussion centered around the sources available to solidify a consensus. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I added two sources, one from a local news coverage. Getting local news coverage for an international event makes it more significant. Emass100 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just want to ping, , and . They have likely seen this discussion but abstained from participating thus far (wisely, IMO), but also probably have the best sense of how much coverage there has been of 1lib1ref. As such, it would probably help discussion to know if there sources that Ed, et al. missed so far in this discussion? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes their views more important than the views of people who commented above? –Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I created the campaign :P I have been watching the page for a while -- and would argue that it's notable -- its increasingly showing up in long-term scholarly pieces about the relationship of libraries and Wikipedia (see for example this Google search and discussion of the campaign is showing up in a number of more long-term publications (i.e. this coverage. However, because of my Conflict of Interest -- I am not going to place a vote in the concensus. Sadads (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to give the impression their opinions were "more important." They have the good sense not to jump in with a !vote here, but as people directly involved with 1lib1ref, I figured they may be able to save the rest of us some time/effort as we try to search for sources. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.