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 no consensus. A renaming discussion can take place on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 17:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ontheroofs (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)

The topic of the article is generally personal and doesn't meet general notability WP:GNG. The article's subject didn't draw much of public attention of the media. Given the pretext of arts and exploration neither of the sources discuss the arts:

1. Fails WP:ARTN: Only a few reliable and independent media were cited. Total 4 of 10 sources are primary, the rest are personal:
   1. The Guardian^[1] — Very short mention of climbing of one building.
   2. the The Huffington Post^[2] — An interview, which may not be considered as independent
   3. dailymail.co.uk^[3] — The same.
   4. Rossiyskay Gazeta^[4][5] — Notion of the fact of climbing of the building
2. Fails WP:NRV: provides affiliated with subject author sources: youtube video, Russia-based website rbth.com of questionable reliability^{[note 1]}
3. There is no general coverage of the project in the news (just click "Google" above)^{[note 2]} The coverage seems to be is short living: two sources are for February 2014, the other two are much later.
4. Links leading to a personal pages of subject's author which seems to be a kind advertisement which is violation of the WP:PROMO

I propose to delete the article and move it to a section in the Rooftopping article. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 11:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Loads of WP:SIGCOV cited in the article. Really don't know what the nom is thinking about with this - the Guardian and rbth.com (which is a pass for WP:NEWSORG - and anyway is just a translation of an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, which is also obviously an RS) references by themselves are enough to sustain notability. As for the coverage being short-lived, two years passed between the Guardian and Rossiyskaya Gazeta articles, which is obviously enough to show lasting coverage. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: and anyway is just a translation of an article [...] The original Russian article in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta isn't about Ontheroofs project (article's subject). It's about climbers and ascending achievement (it's very common for state-run media in Russia to brag about such "achievements").^[5] There are in fact two of them.^[6] Neither of them mention or refers to any ontheroofs project. They don't even discuss much about the arts or photos. The "translation" published on the rbth.com^[7] is not a translation at all.

the Guardian [...] Doesn't mention ontheroofs either.

don't know what the nom is thinking about with this [...] I think that the article was created in order to promote climbers popularity, not to recognize the project's notability. I believe it doesn't deserve a separate article, and must be removed and part of the content must be re-created elsewhere as I said it before. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 10:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That the articles do not explicitly mention the term "Ontheroofs" is completely immaterial to the notability of this article, since the are clearly discussing the Ontheroofs art project. If you wish to change the name of the article to a different title (say, the names of the two artists) then that is a subject for discussion on the article talk-page or even just a WP:BOLD edit. The motives of the people who created the article is immaterial - the notability of the article is what matters. Page-quality issues are not a matter for AFD since AFD is not cleanup. If you think the article needs editing (and it does) then WP:DIY is always worth keeping in mind. Finally, I note that your argument that this article is not notable consists of ... listing coverage in the Russian media further demonstrating notability. FOARP (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Wikipedia is not a place for personal projects (WP:NOT#MYINVENTION), WP:ORIGINAL or WP:PROMO. Considering that majority of the sources are either personal or primary and they failed to gain significant coverage in media or books — no reason to keep it. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 13:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is great, because this isn't simply a personal project. It's a notable subject, as demonstrated by the references. If you want to clean up the article, then please go ahead and do so - but AFD is not clean-up. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Wikipedia has rules for a reason. You may not ignore them. I suggest you to read WP:PSTS to learn more about them. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia has rules. WP:GNG for example says that where an article has multiple supporting independent references in reliable sources it's likely to be notable. This one does. You've even helpfully listed some here. Specifically, you've listed newspaper coverage of this project, which is a secondary source. FOARP (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Vitaliy Raskalov and Vadim Makhorov and adjust wording accordingly. The duo have received coverage that would meet the inclusion criteria. What absolutely none of the coverage have done is to describe an "urban exploration and rooftopping photography project" thta goes by the name of "Ontheroofs". The duo's web site's about page makes no mention of this being such a project. That seems to be WP:OR. -- Whpq (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to back this rename per the discussion above. FOARP (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2019 (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.