Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interlingua Coollist

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 - although arguments to merge are persuasive I consider that this fails WP:RS so any merged information would have verifiability issues. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interlingua Coollist[edit]

Non-notable email list. No independent WP:RS for WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria. Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but contested/recreated. Leuko 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added the numerous redirects to the nomination. Leuko 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam and non-notable. Escape Artist Swyer | Talk to me | Articles touched by my noodly appendage 21:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume that means Delete? Leuko 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Interlingua. JJL 01:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I think the circumstances of this nomination warrant closing the discussion immediately. I am the author of this article, and I had hardly finished writing it when I received a notice that it had been nominated for speedy deletion. The grounds were "no assertion of notability." I quickly responded by quoting three assertions of notability from the article and explaining why I thought the article should be kept. Then, I accessed the article again to add a fourth assertion of notability. The article had already been deleted! I undeleted it and added the fourth assertion, only to find that an editor had deleted my explanation in support of keeping the article. I was forced to defend the article a second time. A few minutes later, I got a message on my talk page that, again, the article had been nominated for deletion. The repeated deletions and nominations - before the article even had a chance to develop over time - have been disruptive and have served no purpose.

There are now five assertions of notability pointed out on the article's discussion page. As for there being no independent RS, or reliable sources, one was already cited. It was written by an influential scholarly author who consulted with Alexander Gode, probably the most prominent male figure in interlinguistics, on the development of Interlingua. The article appears in the journal of the American Society for Interlingua. The journal isn't affiliated with the Interlingua Coollist, however, which is instead affiliated with Interlingua USA.

I went to the userpages of the two editors, and both of them, especially the second, had apparently evoked anger repeatedly with previous deletion activities. The first had nominated 19 articles for deletion or speedy deletion in 46 minutes, a rate of one every 2 ½ minutes. This seems unusually fast, and it seems highly unlikely that the editor had done the searches and other research necessary for a sound nomination. The impression given is one of "~~deletion for sport~~" insufficient caution, and would likely also be disruptive to the other authors affected. Matt 02:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line drawn, as promised. Matt 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur that you deserve a little time to make the case and delaying the nom. would have been reasonable rather than a same-day nom. for what is not clearly nonsense, but I disagree that as it now stands it shows notability. Can you cite a newspaper article or the like about this Yahoo! group? If not, is merging it to the Interlingua article so undesirable? JJL 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that a merge would be a bad thing, it's just that the Interlingua article is already very large, and it doesn't yet cover many important topics, such as Interlingua and Religion. Specialized subjects like this one rarely appear in newspapers and other mainstream sources. For specialized articles, the Notability page suggests using the expert-subject tag, and specifying a WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable of the field. They may have access to reliable sources not available online. I think this would be the best response if you feel that the subject may be non-notable. I'm not seeing where the page gives the article's original author sole responsibility for establishing that a subject is notable. Wikipedia is a community effort, is it not? Matt 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is a community effort, but at an AfD focusing on the notability of the subject of an article, it is the responsibility of those community members voting "keep" (or "speedy keep") to establish notability using WP:RS. If there are no sources, how can other editors verify the content of/claims made in the article, as this is a cornerstone of WP policy. Leuko 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, the expert-subject tag comes before the AfD. My point is that adding the tag would have been consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policy, while the delete nominations weren't, under these circumstances. I'm suggesting that we should change course and, if anything, add the tag. As far as there being no sources, a source - in my opinion, a reliable one - was already cited. Matt 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I too thought you should have a little time to prove the notability of the article's subject. That's why I brought it to AfD, instead of pursuing other avenues. AfD's last for 5 days, so that should be plenty of time. And as far as assertions of notability go, I could assert that I am the greatest Wikipedia editor. Doesn't mean much though without WP:RS to back up that statement. There is one reference in the article and from what I can tell it is not independent (as it is written by the same organization that sponsors the mailing list), and it may not be all that notable/reliable itself, since I can't find much about it on Google, save for some usenet groups. The WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria requires that the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. In this case, I am not seeing the multiple WP:RS. In regards to your other comments, please comment on the merits of the content, without making judgments of other editors, as they may be seen as personal attacks. Please Assume Good Faith and accept that most are here to produce a high quality encyclopedia. Yes, I was on New Page Patrol, and tagging many articles that were obvious WP:CSD candidates. It was not "deletion for sport" as you put it. I did research before nominating the article for deletion, and I did not find anything particularly notable about an email listserve on Yahoo Groups. And yes, people obviously get angry when "their article" (contrary to WP:OWN) is nominated for deletion. However, does that mean the deletion was incorrect? Of course not. If you take a look through my talk archives I am sure you will find many editors complaining about the deletion of articles, however, in most cases the articles remain deleted because the articles did not meet WP guidelines/policies. But don't get discouraged, hundreds of articles are deleted every day, so you are not being singled out. Leuko 04:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that I was expressing concern about a series of events, not making judgments about you personally. If you feel my remark was a judgment. I'll draw a line through it and replace it.

I quoted assertions of notability from the article because the reason given for speedy deletion was "no assertion of notability." Those assertions are different from a claim to be "the greatest Wikipedia editor" in that a reliable source was already cited.

As far as I know, the American Society for Interlingua doesn't sponsor the Coollist, and I said as much above. So again, to my knowledge, the source is independent. As to its reliability, it's the official organ of the ASI and as such should be a reliable source.

It isn't surprising that you "did not find anything particularly notable" in about 2 ½ minutes. Did the search include Finnish, Swedish, and Brazilian publications? Interlingua is a multinational phenomenon, and most offline sources on it are published in Europe or South America in non-English languages. Establishing a lack of notable coverage would be a time-consuming prospect. At most, the Interlingua Coollist article is one that "may be non-notable" and can therefore be tagged, not deleted.

In my experience, authors don't usually get angry if their articles are handled appropriately. I was angry because of the way the article was handled, not because I was the author. Being on New Article Patrol doesn't mean nominating a long series of articles for speedy deletion. I suggest using any sort of deletion only as a last resort, or in such cases as obvious nonsense.

The web notability inclusion criterion you mentioned is only one of three options. That page also begins, "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use …." The page is a guideline, not policy, and as such is "not set in stone" and "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Surely one of those exceptions is an article that has just been created and, moreover, was repeatedly interrupted before further editing could occur. Again, I'm describing a series of actions, not a person or people.

A notability guideline is especially problematic. A search of the Notability talk page suggests that there is no consensus on what notability is or whether it should be used at all. Matt 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a pretty well established concept that generally has a consensus. Sure, you may search through the archives and find a few disgruntled people after 'their' pages were deleted on notability grounds. Notability criteria are necessary so that Wikipedia remains an an encyclopedia, rather than a dumping ground of random information and WP:COI spam. I do think I am using "common sense" when applying the guidelines - an internet email list serve of any type is not likely to be notable unless covered by multiple WP:RS in a way that independent WP editors can verify the content of the article and claims like "most popular list," etc. And since you continue to bring up my "deletion for sport" rampage, rather than the merits of the article, I can assure you that I carefully consider articles before tagging them for deletion. For example, this article did not assert any notability in the version which I first saw it. However, I did manage to do a Google search that indicated multiple WP:RS covering the subject of the article. Therefore, I did not tag it for deletion, rather I tagged it as needing sources. When I saw another editor marked it for speedy deletion today under non-notable criteria, I quickly added some sources and assertions of notability to stave off deletion. I used the same methodology with Interlingua Coollist, but was unable to find any WP:RS. I don't mark pages for deletion for personal pleasure, I only mark those that I feel are not in line with WP policy/guidelines. But this isn't all about my opinion - that's why I brought it to AfD, where numerous editors should share their thoughts on whether the article should be deleted or not. Unfortunately, it seems that the large amounts of off-topic tangents has diminished the usual brisk participation. Leuko 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - No RS, no strong case for NOTE, and short enough that it could be easily dealt with in a two paragraph section in Interlingua after cutting a wee bit of cruft with odd tone. MrZaius^talk 19:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really familiar with the source, I'd be interested in knowing in what way you feel it's unreliable. As to merging, this would mean putting it in the Community section or the Interlingua today section. Both of these are in a very summary form and really don't include two paragraphs on anything. Matt 13:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fora-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's just no way of knowing how this new article might have turned out – whether it would merit merging, GA status, or something in between. And I think we would need to know that to fairly decide what to do.

To summarize my thoughts, here is what I think should be done:

Speedy keep on the basis of disruption.
Attach an expert-subject tag, per the notability guideline, that asks for additional reliable sources

It's the only approach suggested here that's consistent with Wikipedia policy. In addition, I suggest that it's the fairest decision. Matt 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how many experts do you think there are on the subject of Yahoo Groups mailing lists? And bringing an article that does not meet notability criteria to AfD is not disruption, as brining an FA to AfD would be. Oh and deletion and/or merging is plenty consistent with WP policy. Leuko 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The expert subject would be Interlingua, and the disruption is the series of events that I described under speedy keep, not simply bringing the article to AfD. It is this series of events, and the omission of the expert subject step, that I consider to be at odds with Wikipedia policy. And again, I think it's important to be fair. Matt 13:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mailing lists' pages merit mention at Interlingua, probably as external links. But the lists themselves do not meet notability guidelines, and therefore should not have their own articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2007 (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.