Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohdan Warchomij
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. I'm treating this as a prod. Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bohdan Warchomij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. gnews merely confirms he has taken photos for news.com.au [1]. google search mainly reveals directory listings. created by a single purpose editor so potentially WP:AUTOBIO. those wanting to keep must show indepth third party coverage of this individual not a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to nominator, who writes: those wanting to keep must show indepth third party coverage of this individual. They must? Why? -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- because i can't find evidence of such, and frankly too many keep voters say WP:MUSTBESOURCES and don't supply any. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you implying that any AfD that fails to come up with in-depth third-party coverage ends, or should end, in deletion? -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:N. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a passing acquaintance with it. A sane version (from January this year) of its "nutshell": Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. [...]. ¶ The current version: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. [...]. The current talk of enduring notice would seem to me to require that every topic should be at least twenty years old; and once this is combined with a requirement that notice should be by the world at large, most topics are out, because only a tiny percentage of WP editors can start to look for significant notice in Swahili, Hausa, Mongolian, Azeri, etc. ¶ The January version takes the form A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if X. So X is a sufficient reason for inclusion. It is not thereby a necessary reason for inclusion. (Or do you take the current version seriously?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am no longer going to respond to your need for long explanations. This is AfD exists for discussing the notability of this subject not broad ranging rants. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, LibStar, I hope I haven't offended you! No, no, I am not requesting a long explanation, let alone a broad-ranging rant; I am merely wondering whether you are as well acquainted with "WP:N" as you might be. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am no longer going to respond to your need for long explanations. This is AfD exists for discussing the notability of this subject not broad ranging rants. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a passing acquaintance with it. A sane version (from January this year) of its "nutshell": Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. [...]. ¶ The current version: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. [...]. The current talk of enduring notice would seem to me to require that every topic should be at least twenty years old; and once this is combined with a requirement that notice should be by the world at large, most topics are out, because only a tiny percentage of WP editors can start to look for significant notice in Swahili, Hausa, Mongolian, Azeri, etc. ¶ The January version takes the form A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if X. So X is a sufficient reason for inclusion. It is not thereby a necessary reason for inclusion. (Or do you take the current version seriously?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:N. LibStar (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you implying that any AfD that fails to come up with in-depth third-party coverage ends, or should end, in deletion? -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- because i can't find evidence of such, and frankly too many keep voters say WP:MUSTBESOURCES and don't supply any. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.