Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1Lib1Ref (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Including the comments from Sadads, the arguments not to delete the article are stronger, and only seriously challenged by the nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

1Lib1Ref
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a footnote in Wikipedia history with little to nothing interesting to say about it. Coverage on WP:BEFORE is sparse and overwhelmingly promotional; coverage in the article includes a frankly masturbatory number of promotional primary sources. At the very least, this should be in projectspace. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete this is an extreme example of navel gazing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets GNG, as it did last time round, when the AfD was closed with the summary The consensus is that significant coverage exists about this topic in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * I read the last-round AfD prior to nominating, and I didn't find the arguments particularly convincing. Some of the claims (e.g. "this is more notable than a weak NFOOTBALL pass") are cases of things changing since last round (weak NFOOTBALL passes are de facto no longer considered notable); the most serious keep argument actively admitted it was borderline and mostly showed trivial or promotional coverage. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: In addition to the multiple reliable sources already cited in the article, I found the following additional sources with a quick Google News search:
 * https://feminisminindia.com/2019/05/28/1lib1ref-women-in-india-wikipedia-editathon/
 * https://actualitte.com/article/4157/bibliotheque/wikipedia-compte-a-nouveau-sur-les-bibliothecaires-pour-1lib1ref-en-2021 (machine translation)
 * https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/blogs/the-scoop/libraries-wikipedia-come-together-right-now/
 * This article was up for AFD 3 years ago and passed relatively easily at the time. Since then more sources (like the ones identified above) have come out.  I have no interest in WP naval gazing but there's no policy against Wikipedia related articles and the sources here seem like "significant coverage" to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment as one of the principle organizers over the years, I have quite a conflict of interest on this so won't weigh in on the actual decision. However, also -- there is an increasing body of library-practice scholarship about the role #1lib1ref has played for the library and Wikipedia space (i.e. or  -- see Google scholar search this search) and for derivative initiatives (i.e. CITENLM) . I would hope any move to delete would minimally up-merge the content into a larger "Wikipedia and Libraries" article (which doesn't yet exist) -- which I am kindof surprised hasn't been written yet considering the amount of professional documentation we have.  And speaking as an admin that occasionally closes other discussions -- any time you open a deletion discussion opened with an insult like "masturbatory number of promotional primary sources" your whole argument 10x weaker because its designed to provoke emotional response from other participants,  Sadads (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My language came from frustration, yes; I apologise for any offense taken. I'm not here to demean your work on the project, just as people AfDing any article on any other topic aren't out to harm its subjects. There is no difference between this matter and the organizer of any other event turning up to an AfD on that event's article. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: It was agreed to be kept during the previouos AfD. Per reliable sources in the previouos AfD and above, the article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In order, the previous AfD was:
 * An undisclosed creator !vote that read, in full, "Clearly meets GNG; the nom needs to find a better search engine"
 * A statement that significant events related to Wikipedia are notable, with no assertation as to how or why this specific event would be significant
 * The "borderline keep" I previously mentioned -- a good and serious attempt to find actual sources -- that demonstrated a combination of local coverage of "county librarian serves community" and WMF-based sources
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-violating non-sequitur about WP:NFOOTBALL
 * Comment-slash-redirect-!vote
 * Delete !vote
 * Speedy keep just-a-vote that invoked WP:SNOW for some reason
 * Keep !vote that added two sources -- a good move -- except the sources in the article, three years later, are terrible
 * This is not an enticing selection of "things to refer to in the previous AfD". I'm not exactly a deletionist, to say the least, and I looked at that and went "there is no other subject where the majority of these keeps would be considered viable arguments". Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: from WP per John Pack Lambert, but move to project space. --Bduke (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2021 (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.