Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Physical Therapy Day


 * 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. Sufficient sources have been found to verify the notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) Writing Enthusiast  ☎ 17:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

World Physical Therapy Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication that this day is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart.  This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime these AfDs ought to be pulled. In the case of this article, it's more of the same: WDTV in West Virginia, The Daily Star (Bangladesh) , the Times of Assam , the Manila Bulletin , the Hindustan Times  ...   Ravenswing   18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not significant coverage - they are WP:TRIVIAL mentions. You seem to argue that any event mentioned or featured is notable solely for the mention or feature. That's not WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: As I mentioned on your talk page when you raised the same issue, you seem badly confused as to what WP:TRIVIA refers to, which is the use of trivia sections within articles; it has nothing to do with notability. This among your apparent lack of understanding of WP:BEFORE leads to questions as to your grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I urge you to review them. As far as the citations I found, I believe -- and that belief is founded on a decade of examining sources in a couple thousand deletion discussions -- that they are sources which discuss the subject in the "substantial detail" required by WP:N and the GNG. (I didn't bother posting a few which I felt didn't.)  I'm quite comfortable for deciding myself what I am arguing and upon what grounds, thanks.   Ravenswing   03:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per sources found by Ravenswing. Quoting TRIVIA doesn't really make sense. I think the nom is trying to say it's not "significant coverage", but even that isn't really right. The references are full length article dedicated to the subject at hand. Not sure what standard the nom is holding this article to, but it's well above the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  13:02, 20 September 2014 (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.