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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia for World Heritage[edit]

Wikipedia for World Heritage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, possible redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia for World Heritage. No secondary sources either. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 06:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I suppose if not mergeable.Merge this perhaps to Outline to Wikipedia or another closely-linked article if others wish because this may not actually need to be severely deleted and could be salvaged elsewhere. Unlikely independently notable though, SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Clearly notable and more than enough news coverage. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) Also @SwisterTwister: Nothing should be merged into the outlines as those are just showing the hierarchical relationships (via tree structure) of the various topics of a field. There shouldn't really be content on these pages that isn't to be found in articles already. --Fixuture (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As self-promotion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is not thought through. Just because Wikipedia is (currently) the major encyclopedia of humanity it ought to not cover the notable cultural phenomena of itself? Wikipedia needs to cover itself properly as itself is an integral part of contemporary culture. The amount of news coverage about this outreach proves its notability. --Fixuture (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Fixuture, Kindly WP:AGF. I don't weigh in at AFD without looking for sources, and I usually confine myself to subjects where I know something about the field or context. Sourcing appears to have been largely confined to a flurry of articles at the projects 10th anniversary, have you found significant coverage since then? Nominating oneself for World Heritage status is a widely used self-publicity technique. Moreover, despite the extremely politicized nature of the World Heritage selection process, World Heritage truly is focused on the physical past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• have you found significant coverage since then?

@E.M.Gregory: I've linked 9 major news articles above. All of them have the world heritage project, not the 10th birthday as their main story.

Nominating oneself for World Heritage status is a widely used self-publicity technique

I don't think that Wikipedia needs publicity. Wikipedia being declared world heritage makes sense and isn't just some publicity-technique. Also that's unfounded speculation.

World Heritage truly is focused on the physical past

The exceptionality of this outreach makes it just more notable. Also: things aren't always the best the way they are. Sometimes deviating from common practice can be a good thing. If this project would mean or imply a rethinking of the concept of world heritage it would make this project just way more notable.

Anyways, from the listed sources it's clear that the article meets WP:N.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:N per a review of some of the sources listed above by Fixuture. As such, an article about the topic is wholly qualified. See also WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep in the hope that it can be improved and more sources found. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2016 (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.