Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Wikipedia

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Wikipedia[edit]

Article on a wiki that reportedly contained less than 1200 legitimate articles, was written in a language that may not actually exist, and is almost completely unreferenced. The wiki was shit down barely a year after it opened. The only reference used is actually to a Wikipedia AFD on the language. clearly fails WP:N and WP:V. Firestorm ^Talk 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the WP:N. Bastique ^demandez 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether you liked the wikipedia or not is another matter, but unlike many other language editions it was notable, precisely for the reasons outlined by the nominator. Independent sources can easily be found [1][2], so it is certainly more notable than most of the wikipedias listed in Template:Wikipedias. Colchicum (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable sources and no established notability? No encyclopedia article. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:N. Weak keep. 373 ghits and none appear to qualify as reliable sources. The bg.ru article provided by Colchicum is substantial coverage of the topic, and I'll take it on faith that the source is indeed reliable. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Большой город (Russian for Big City) is a biweekly urban magazine. I'd say, WP:RS for this context. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While in the end, it was determined that keeping Siberian Wikipedia around doesn't serve Wikipedia's interests, Wikipedia is a notable entity, and this episode of Wikipedia history is clearly worthy of encyclopædic treatment. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move into wikipedia or user space or delete the article fails our notability criteria for mainspace but the information there might still be interested for some wikipedians Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The history of this project was notable, I would say especially so for those who disliked it. But it could go into WP space. DGG (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are numerous outside sources about this wiki as correctly noted (with links) by Colchichum.Biophys (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting subject. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As in WP:INTERESTING?--Ipatrol (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia Space as a topic about Wikipedia without sources outside of Wikipedia. Tavix : Chat 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply These are outside source provided by Colchicum.[3][4].Biophys (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has notability for the very reason that this wiki was disestablished (hoax, gaming the system). I think it is worth reading for people who would wish to establish new wikis, without considering real possibilities. Russian and Polish wikis also have the corresponding article (I've based the text on ru wiki entry). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Meta Not enough sources for the wiki, nor the language. Good page for meta to show what can go wrong with a wiki.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, but there are numerous articles on such minor wikis that have only 1000 articles and no other interesting facts. E.g. Silesian Wikipedia. As the article itself explains, sib-ru.wiki used to be quite 'bulky' at the time, surpassing many notable real language wikis. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds a bit like a WP:BIG argument. Both the article and the closure page at meta say that a large number of articles were blank, nonsensical, or incoherent. It seems that the project just tried to bulk itself up to prevent closure, a hollow scheme that was easily seen through. At most the wiki had only 1,000 or so useful articles. There are not enough non-wiki sources to verify more than a sentence of this article. Just move it to Meta.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore Siberian language and merge to that. Siberian language (please read the deletion discussions) should be merged with this page and built up as an article about the language and its brief moment of fame on Wikipedia. Yes I'm aware that it was a made-up language; it's still notable for being briefly widely used enough to have its own Wikipedia. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is unsourced. The only sources were to the previous AfD discussion for this article, which I removed, and was reverted with the edit summary that the article isn't really able to be sourced any other way. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information, and if it is unable to be sourced via independent, reliable sources which discuss the article subject in great detail, then it is pretty clear that we shouldn't have an article on it, and that is precisely the case here, as there is no notability in the real world. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what's the notability of the article Silesian Wikipedia, Venetian Wikipedia or even Yiddish Wikipedia in the real world? Do these articles I linked here have any more external sources than the one discussed here? (I managed two give some external links, now, too). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and I usually respond to such arguments that they are irrelevant to this discussion, as we are not discussing them here. They need to be discussed separately, outside of the confines of this AfD. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain. Colchicum (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, the most logical response to OTHERSTUFFEXIST is SOWHAT? It's true that other stuff exists, but it's not relevant in deciding whether this stuff should exist. Either way.

In order to make reasonable decisions of this kind, we should figure out *what kind* of other stuff exists, how it is *like* the stuff in question, and what are the *differences*. Something like studying case law. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional The Tomsk News article which I have reviewed seems more like the rehashing of a press release (or something) and doesn't say anything apart from that a wikipedia for a made up language has been opened. It's not really discussing the subject in any great detail. And the Bulgarian source, whilst giving a little notability, still means that we are lacking multiple sources which discuss the subject. We can't build an article based upon a single source. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. My point was that in articles about Wikipedias and just wiki stuff, we probably don't have many good third-party sources anyway. E.g. the Czech Wikipedia seems to be one of the top wikis, yet it's a stub totally unsourced with just one external link about edit warrring there. If you discrad this as just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I could argue you are being somewhat hypocritical here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it hypocritical to discount WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments? We aren't discussing Czech WP here. If you believe that it doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion, then nominate it, and perhaps Czech speakers can establish notability, as sources for them are likely to be found in Czech language. The problem with this article, is that Siberian isn't even a language, so it's entirely impossible to find reliable sources in that "language". --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bg.ru is not a Bulgarian source, it is a Russian magazine. :) Any notability is relative, and in the absense of explicit notability criteria the existence of the other articles show us the threshold of notability for them, which happens to be quite low nowadays. It is hardly disputable that per our general notability criterion Siberian Wikipedia is more notable than many others (unlike them, it has received at least some coverage in independent reliable sources.) Is it notable enough? I don't know, but some precedent has been set. Colchicum (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking that up. My mind somehow made me write Bulgarian. But does it establish notability? It's a single article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable former wiki, no multiple reliable sources. I see the notability of this entry derived from the discussion about the Siberian language (which we don't have an article about anymore), and anything that can be said about the wiki (and shouldn't be in article space) is already in the deletion discussion on meta and does not need to be kept here. Kusma (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noted analyst of Russian and Eurasian affairs Paul A. Goble mentions Siberian Wikipedia in his blog. Blogs are an acceptable source if written by established experts in the field, and topic is in the area of their expertise. Martintg (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFPUB applies here (particularly claims about third parties), as does, dare I say it WP:NOTADVOCATE. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't apply in this case, Paul Goble is an acknowledged expert in his field. If you doubt this, let's take it to the reliable sources notice board and get wider input. Martintg (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The purpose of not considering blogs reliable in Wikipedia is refraining from quoting everybody's grandmother and her cat as reliable authority on sword-wielding skeletons. However, blogs are not ding an sich; they're communication channels -- and where they communicate with an acknowledged expert, they're citable. Of course, they should not be considered as the first resort. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And have either of you got a reliable source which indicates this is indeed Goble's blog? Anyone can start up a blog using credentials of another individual. It's for this reason that blogs are not generally regarded as reliable sources, and even then they can only be used as sources on themselves, and when it doesn't involve claims against third-parties; which this article does, in that it is a rehash of the Zolotaryev's opinions who started the monstrosity that was the Siberian Wikipedia. I find it funny, though not surprising if this is indeed Gobles blog, that the closure was blamed on Russian nationalists; there's nothing like spreading good-old Russophobia; which comes to think of it, given Gobles career as an anti-Russian propagandist, he is well placed for it, so maybe it is his after all. But still, verification of ownership of the blog is required within the confines of this AfD, as people are claiming it is a reliable source. But still WP:NOTADVOCATE comes into play. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your verification: [5]. And lately you have been the only person engaged in advocacy here. Colchicum (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be confirmation. But it is still WP:NOTADVOCATE as it isn't independent reporting as such. If anything it is giving notability to the editor who is on a crusade to invent an anti-Moskal language, because as Martintg himself writes, it mentions it, but it doesn't give any indepth independent reporting on the stain on WP's butt that was the Siberian Wikipedia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:40, 7 April 2009 (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.