Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedian of the Year (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. Per the GNG-based arguments; a lot of the keep arguments are not based on policy or guideline (there has never been a project-wide consensus that Wikimedia-related articles are exempt from the normal notability guidelines) but the GNG based keeps stand. Further discussion on moving or redirecting can occur elsewhere, but there is clearly no consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedian of the Year
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Awards have to meet WP:GNG. I don't see how it does. The award is occasionally mentioned in biographies of people who got it, and in news mentioning them, but I can't find any independent source discussing the award, it's significance, or such. The best source out there is, and when our best source is a niche online-only newsletter, well... At best, I can suggest a merge with Wikimania. (Btw, if someone asks "why don't just suggest a merge", well, this was 'kept' in an AfD few years ago so I think it is the best venue to discuss the future of this article). PS. Also relevant is the older Articles for deletion/Wikipedian of the year. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * weak keep - wikimania has no room for it. It's siginificant news that's coming from wikipedia. in this case wikipedia is the primary source.Grmike (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
 * Keep per all the reasons in the snow keep of the 2018 deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Instant keep Wikimedia movement constantly needs promotion (for the sake of Wikipedia) and Wikimedian of the Year is a good means of that promotion, and Wikipedia article about Wikimedian of the Year is a good means for the needed promotion with all of the necessary conditions provided including international mass media coverage for many years. --ssr (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: We are clearly biased on this subject, and I am comfortable with that. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG is just a guideline which explicitly expects that there will be "occasional exceptions". This is an appropriate exception because we can verify the facts of the matter ourselves. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per last time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to remind the closing admin that WP:NOTAVOTE and I am appalled that not a single argument above is policy based (WP:KEEPPER, WP:ITSUSEFUL, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You think the people here need to be reminded about rules? How about WP:5P? Wikipedia is not about "rules", Wikipedia is about doing our common goal which you try to interrupt by breaking existing WP:CONS and making WP:GAME. --ssr (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly you need a reminder about WP:NPA/WP:AGF. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly no "good faith" here. Good faith is keep the article and praise it. What are you trying to accomplish? Prevent falsehood? Keep readers off lies? What is your 2nd try for? What is your purpose in terms of "good faith"? --ssr (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wikimania, only one source here can contribute to notability, the rest are either passing mentions, primary sources and syndicated content from Wikipedia itself, none of which contribute to GNG. Keep votes are nothing more than flagrant disregard for encyclopedic standards. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedic standards" are for Nupedia, Citizendium and Google Knol. Wikipedia is about telling people what they want to know about, not what "scientists approve what people want to know". --ssr (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And I suppose you are the supreme arbiter of what people want to see since you seem to consider your opinions superior to the established consensus that decides notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not I—we. --ssr (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG from the multiple sources/coverage used in the article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Week keep. With the current policies, it's notable. Ideally, Wikipedia should not have articles about itself and other Wikimedia projects in the main namespace. This includes articles about J. Wales, L. Sanger, WMF, F. Nibart-Devouard, S. Gardner, K. Maher, Wikinews, Q42, Wikimania, Essjay controversy, and many other things. But it's not in the current notability policies, so this article is eligible to be kept. (Possible conflict of interest: I stood on the stage in Haifa, helping Mr. Wales change the slides while he was announcing his first Wikipedian of the Year award.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia namespace as the other Wikipedia Awards are listed in. dibbydib (T ･ C) 05:05, 4 May 2020 (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.