Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monastic Protestant Community in Enonkoski
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 no consensus. Black Kite 00:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Monastic Protestant Community in Enonkoski[edit]
- The Monastic Protestant Community in Enonkoski (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:ORG. nothing in gnews and google is mainly mirror sites. Finnish article is also unreferenced so not sure if this even has coverage in Finnish. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, the current version of the article is unreferenced. That does not mean the subject has no coverage in media. Try Google "Enonkosken luostari" and "Enonkosken luostariyhteisö". --SM (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't speak Finnish, so would not be able to determine how useful the sources are. however, I don't see the value of this article on English wikipedia, if no English speakers are ever going to have any value. I'm also wary of WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The most useful sources, like in most of the subjects, are not on Google search engine. --SM (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide the sources then. you have only provided google searches not sources. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google is a search engine, and by using it may be possible to find useful sources. You just seemed to think that Google is the only indicator for notability. My physical location at this moment is not in library or other place where these written sources are available and providable, which does not affect to the notability of the subject. But I provide few news articles and other secondary/3rd party sources found in the Internet: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. In written form, more information of the Enonkoski monastery can be found for example in book Yhteisöt ja kirkon uudistuminen by Heikki Kotila, it has a section "Enonkosken luostari – yhteyden mahdollisuus" written by priest Pirjo Työrinoja [9][10]. --SM (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide the sources then. you have only provided google searches not sources. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The most useful sources, like in most of the subjects, are not on Google search engine. --SM (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't speak Finnish, so would not be able to determine how useful the sources are. however, I don't see the value of this article on English wikipedia, if no English speakers are ever going to have any value. I'm also wary of WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said google was the only indicator. these sources indicate notability in Finnish language wikipedia not necessarily English WP. I doubt a non finnish speaker is going to look up "Enonkosken luostariyhteisö". LibStar (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you can have your opinion. That is just not the idea of Wikipedia. --SM (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- well do you expect say for example every Japanese and Chinese WP topic to be translated into English? LibStar (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't expect that, but yes, it would be useful to some Anglophone non-Japanese/Chinese speaking Wikipedia reader to find information of some Japanese or Chinese subject. As well as this article is useful for English speaker interested in monasteries in general or this particular monastery, especially as you noticed there is only slightly information about the particular subject in other English websites. --SM (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- well do you expect say for example every Japanese and Chinese WP topic to be translated into English? LibStar (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you can have your opinion. That is just not the idea of Wikipedia. --SM (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Articles must meet WP:N and WP:ORG. this article passes the test for Finnish WP not English WP in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it was a reason for keeping, it was an answer to your comment about uselesness which is alike no reason for keeping or deleting. The article and the subject has no problem to meet WP:N and WP:ORG since the language of the source material is not a reason for deleting. --SM (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yes you can use WP:NONENG sources but they should be translated. You have not translated any of these sources so I can't verify that they are WP:RS. these sources must still satisfy WP:RS. but it is highly preferable for independent translation of these. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true that it would be good for non-English sources to be translated. The WP:NONENG does not clearly give an order to translate. Like I already said the current version is unsourced, which is unfavourable, and I provided the sources to disprove your claim that there are no possible useful sources at all. --SM (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yes you can use WP:NONENG sources but they should be translated. You have not translated any of these sources so I can't verify that they are WP:RS. these sources must still satisfy WP:RS. but it is highly preferable for independent translation of these. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it was a reason for keeping, it was an answer to your comment about uselesness which is alike no reason for keeping or deleting. The article and the subject has no problem to meet WP:N and WP:ORG since the language of the source material is not a reason for deleting. --SM (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't verify the sources. nor can any non-Finnish speaker which accounts for the vast majority of English WP users. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NONENG: "sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available."--SM (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yes but preferably they should be translated into English. of course if they're not translated that weakens their reliability for English Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And you think the sources can't be translated? --SM (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- some sources are not reliable, some make passing mentions, not all sources conform to WP:RS. since I don't speak Finnish and no translation has been provided I cannot verify the quality of the sources you have provided for English WP. If this was Finnish WP that is fine as it would be safe to assume I'm a Finnish speaker. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I have mentioned it was originally and answer to disprove your claim there are no useful sources or media coverage. In my opinion they are as reliable as independent secundary sources are. The [11] was already not mentioned to be used as a sorce, but to provide you source material which you asked. Anyways, how can you investigate anything about passing mentions or being not reliable if you don't know the language?
- some sources are not reliable, some make passing mentions, not all sources conform to WP:RS. since I don't speak Finnish and no translation has been provided I cannot verify the quality of the sources you have provided for English WP. If this was Finnish WP that is fine as it would be safe to assume I'm a Finnish speaker. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And you think the sources can't be translated? --SM (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- yes but preferably they should be translated into English. of course if they're not translated that weakens their reliability for English Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- exactly, that is the issue with non English sources in English WP. they require reliable translations for verification purposes. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- in fact, if they were reliably translated and satisfied WP:RS, then myself and other non Finnish speaking WP users can verify how they establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. But in fact, the mother tongue or the lack of language skills of Wikipedia users are not reasons for deleting.--SM (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- in fact, if they were reliably translated and satisfied WP:RS, then myself and other non Finnish speaking WP users can verify how they establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Here are few translations of the sources. These are not to be used in the article, but to give some kind of description about the reliability and verifiability of these sources: [12] (a news article in third party media), [13] (a tird party news item in the website of Oulu parish, [14] (A week long radio series of one of the inhabitants of the monastery by Finnish Public Broadcasting Company YLE), [15] (a therd party article in one of the most popular magazines Apu, part of it consist information about the monastery), [16] (a third party news article about a seminar held in the monastery)... --SM (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't know where the nominator has got the idea from that sources have to be accessible to every reader, whether it terms of physical access, familiarity with the subject matter or language, or that non-English sources have to be translated. I'm sure that there's nothing in policy or guidelines that suggests this. SM has presented many sources, and those of us who don't read Finnish should accept that they are as described unless any evidence is presented to the contrary. I've added a reference to an English-language source to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- as per WP:NONENG, non English sources are permitted but they should be translated for the benefit of determining their value and if they meet WP:RS. what SM might think is acceptable should be tested by the wider community. is that not a reasonable expectation given that is article is nominated for deletion? It is not a criticism of SM, s/he is quite entitled to give us Finnish sources, just that I think English speakers should be given an opportunity to see the quality of sources. as an experienced editor, sometimes sources only make passing mentions rather than in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NONENG says nothing of the sort. Please read it carefully. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the preference for non English sources to be translated for the benefit of English WP Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you seem to have difficulty understanding English, let alone Finnish. That explains the procedure to follow when a translation of a direct quotation is provided - it doesn't say that translations of sources should be provided. In fact, posting a translation of a large enough part of a source to demonstrate that it amounts to significant coverage would be a copyright violation, so should certainly not be encouraged. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the preference for non English sources to be translated for the benefit of English WP Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NONENG says nothing of the sort. Please read it carefully. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you shouldn't insult other users as per WP:NPA. if non English sources are provided for WP, shouldn't English speakers be allowed to at least understand what the sources say? or do we blindly trust them? LibStar (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what is the difference between blindly trusting the sources or the translation? --SM (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:11, 10 November 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.