Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Commons


 * 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The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nom), and include secondary sources provided in this debate.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 01:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete as vanity. This article does not cite a single secondary source. It does not assert notability. If this were not Wikipedia, we wouldn't have this article. When this does not cite any sources, it needs to be deleted, or moved to the project namespace. I hesitated with A7, but the deletion is probably too controversial for that.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Keep Sigh. It's obvious to me that the only other result you could get was that this should be merged to a section of the foundation's article, as this site is clearly notable, and as an official aspect of the collective banner of Wikipedia, this warrants coverage to a certain extent. Even if nobody elsewhere even mentioned it (which isn't the case at all anyway, as even the most trivial of searches will show), it'd still be important to document as an aspect of Wikipedia. I am concerned that this nomination is misguided, do you not realize there are other options? This isn't horribly disruptive, but I an doubtful you made a good choice here. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep. Are you kidding? Nothing wrong with keeping this page. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not kidding. And remember that AfD is not a vote. Please provide an argument with your comment. I currently do not know why you want to keep this page.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no other place to put the page. The information isn't duplicated anywhere else, and it's on a clearly notable topic. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the topic "clearly notable"? The article does not currently establish notability. Not even one secondary source is cited.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources does not equal non-notability. If there are no sources, you can always just add some... Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless someone can identify a more appropriate place in the Wiki-world to place the apparently useful and important information in this article. If this duplicates similar info somewhere else in Wikipedia I would reconsider. (edited to add:) I added a reference from "International News on Fats, Oils, and Related Materials (inform)" a journal published by the American Oil Chemists Society, a reliable and independent publication which contains substantial coverage of Wikimedia Commons. This is one step towards satisfying the formal requirements of WP:N  Edison 00:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)(edited Edison 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
 * A more appropriate place would be the project namespace. Your keep comment does not address the notability concerns I raised. We shouldn't keep articles just because they have an affiliation with Wikipedia. This is vanity.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And that the information is "useful" is not a reason to keep the article, either. An FAQ on "how to avoid common mistakes when having a date with someone" is useful, but not encyclopaedic.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs expansion and sourcing, but the subject is without a doubt notable. Atropos 00:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First off, while it isn't a typically valid argument, Wikimedia Commons definitely passes the sniff test. I'll go out on a limb and say by the 69M results there that it passes WP:N. Secondly, there are secondary sources out there; they're easily found using a Google News search, so it passes WP:V. Finally, articles being of somewhat poor quality isn't a reason for deletion, the last time I checked. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we can't just keep an article without a single secondary source, no matter how notable the subject is deemed to be.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but we can ADD sources to it. If the article needs more sources, you're always welcome to fix it yourself instead of disrupting Wikipedia over it. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am, in fact, not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I merely think that articles about ourselves should be held to the same standards as other articles; this one doesn't cite a single secondary source, which is usually a reason for deletion. The burden of providing sources lies not on me. If you want to keep this article, source it.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not address my concern. The article has not even one single source cited, which is normally a reason for deletion.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Not citing a source is a reason to add  or other tags to an article.  If that doesn't work, perhaps you try to get people's attention elsewhere.  It's not a reason to delete on its own, not when it's quite apparent that there are actually sources.  It doesn't take much looking at all.  I'm sorry you don't recognize that your choice of nomination was ill-considered, but I think you really need to step back and see if your actions were really the best decision.  If you want to improve Wikipedia articles, there are better ways.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per precedent at Articles for deletion/Wikiquote. Notwithstanding, as a widely used repository of photos, Wikimedia Commons seems as notable as the popular media sharing website Flickr. Shalom Hello 01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even disregarding the consensus of prior AfDs, the Commons has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. A Google News archive search reveals plenty of articles of which the Commons and its mission are the primary subject. -- K r  i  m  p  e  t  01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Melsaran/Salaskan needs to note that the article now has one secondary source, which I added, and that another editor pointed out several other secondary sources, which can be added to improve the sourcing of the article. It can take a little while to look them over and see the best place to add them, and to see what revisions in the article they may suggest. But if the sources are noted here or in the talk page of the article, even without being added as inline refs, the argument that the subject in not notable fails. Edison 01:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously notable and if a lack of secondary sources seems to exist, perhaps it requires more investigating, or wait for those sources to develop. Policy does not dictate a shoot-on-sight approach to any article without secondary sources at the moment. If it did, we could all hit 'random article' and have a field day. -- Naruttebayo 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Carina22 01:33, 7 August 2007 (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.