Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
Source: 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
- Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia (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 article doesn't include any independent sources, they're both from Wikipedia/Wikimedia. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. On what grounds do you want to delete this? The three-sentence article (with two of its three sentences establishing the fact that the article's subject merely exists as such) is not supported by enough sources for your liking?! Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia undeniably does exist. I don't need to be convinced of that by 17 sources. What do you think those 30+ articles in other languages describe?Zvonko (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have notability guidelines to decide which articles should be kept or created. One of the requirements is significant coverage from third-party sources (that is, not affiliated with the subject) and the article doesn't meet it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were to apply all of the points described in that guideline with as much scrutiny and zealotry as the tone with which they're written suggests, just about half of the English Wikipedia would have to disappear. Besides, you seem to be very casually overlooking the fact that the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is apparently notable enough to exist as a language variant of Wikipedia as well as to be described in 30+ other language variants of Wikipedia.Zvonko (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of Serbo-Croatian has nothing to do with the notability of the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, since notability is not inherited.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were to apply all of the points described in that guideline with as much scrutiny and zealotry as the tone with which they're written suggests, just about half of the English Wikipedia would have to disappear. Besides, you seem to be very casually overlooking the fact that the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is apparently notable enough to exist as a language variant of Wikipedia as well as to be described in 30+ other language variants of Wikipedia.Zvonko (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have notability guidelines to decide which articles should be kept or created. One of the requirements is significant coverage from third-party sources (that is, not affiliated with the subject) and the article doesn't meet it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. On what grounds do you want to delete this? The three-sentence article (with two of its three sentences establishing the fact that the article's subject merely exists as such) is not supported by enough sources for your liking?! Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia undeniably does exist. I don't need to be convinced of that by 17 sources. What do you think those 30+ articles in other languages describe?Zvonko (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not relevant, other Wikipedias may have laxer inclusion standards than en.wiki. They don't count as a precedent since they follow different policies.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are also independent sources related to this topic:
- 1) Literary Festival "Na pola puta": (Najluđe je to što uza hrvatsku, srpsku i bosansku postoji još i srpskohrvatska wikipedija koja doslovce sabire maline i kupine, to jest, kopira kvalitetne članke s preostale tri wikipedije i proširuje tematske cjeline prevodima s engleske wikipedije, dok se osjetljive teme koje se tiču bliske povijesti pažljivo zaobilaze. Srpskohrvatska wikipedija je i najležernija u pogledu jezika i pisma, pa dozvoljava da se piše bilo kojim od tri jezika (sr, hr, bs) i dva pisma, iako preferira latinicu.)
- 2) Nezavisna Wikipedija hrvatska(Vjerojatni uzrok lošoj kvaliteti kako hrvatske tako i srpske Wikipedije (možda je srpskohrvatska Wikipedija ipak nešto bolja?) je činjenica da još premalo ljudi sudjeluje u njihovom uređivanju.)
- 3) Extracting bilingual word pairs from Wikipedia (page 23) (Each Wikipedia article can provide links to other articles on the same subject in different languages, so for example on the English article for socialism there is a link to the same article, socijalizam, on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia.)
- 4) A rule-based machine translation system from Serbo-Croatian to Macedonian (Thus the monolingual dictionary for Serbo-Croatian has been developed almost from scratch, with the aid of a Croatian grammar (Barić et al., 1997), and on-line resources such as Hrvatski jeziˇcni portal, wiktionaries and Wikipedia, as well as an SETimes corpus10 (Tyers and Alperen, 2010) and a corpus composed from the Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias.)
- 5) Do as I do: leadership in the Wikipedia (Serbo-Croatian wikipedia used as a source in independent essay-Wales, J. (2005). Re: Ant: Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia - a policy question? wikipedia-l. Retrieved on October 16, 2005 )
- 6) Neutral or National Point of View? A Comparison of Srebrenica articles across Wikipedia's language versions (...the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia generally was meant to be liberal and antinationalist in outlook. (page 3)/ Indeed, the discussion behind the language versions themselves shows dissensus among article editors and throws into stark relief the call for separate Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedias, as opposed to a single Serbo-Croatian one, as we detail below. (page 5)/..............)
- 7) From Who and What to How and Why – The Future of Online Encyclopaedias--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They're independent, but several of them are self-published and the extent of their coverage of the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is trivial, there is nothing more than a brief mention, it's not material that could be added realistically to the article. Number 6 is also unlikely to be a good source for such a sweeping claim.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your objections are partially accurate. Again, I do not agree in part that this sources can not be added realistically to the article. From first one you can put that it is the only of 4 Wikipedias on varieties of Serbo-Croatian that accepts different varieties of Serbo-Croatian language. From sources 2 and 6 you can add that in compaction with other Wikipedias on Serbo-Croatian, this one is described as most impartial one in controversial local topics. In this case you already have 3 independent sources in that article. Other Articles, and especially 5, although not so useful for article content, still show citation of this Wikipedia what contributes to its notability.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They're independent, but several of them are self-published and the extent of their coverage of the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is trivial, there is nothing more than a brief mention, it's not material that could be added realistically to the article. Number 6 is also unlikely to be a good source for such a sweeping claim.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Well, this is quite a ridiculous request, isn't it? Without any detailed analysis, I have found this little quaint article that has 2 references and 3 external links. By pure chance, all 5 links lead to the Lithuanian Wikipedia and it's articles. There is an expansion template located on top of that article, but I cannot see a deletion template. Double standards, perhaps? Or some blatant misinterpretation of the rules?
- Sh.Wiki has about 90,000 articles, some of which are better than on any other Wikipedia (this article, for example, is even better than the one on the French Wikipedia and we have an excellent coverage of anime related topics), and a vast majority of them is better than their counterparts on Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian Wikipedias. I myself am an administrator on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia and I do not see why a Wikipedia that is, in several months time, going to reach 100,000 articles should not have an article on the English Wikipedia?
- As far as the mentioned guidelines go, why is there no deletion template on the before mentioned Lithuanian Wikipedia article? What about this (it has one "third-party source" and it is exclusively related to the number of users and is surely outdated), this and this? This is just a brief outlook of Wikipedia-related articles that have the same status as this article, with one exception - they do not have a deletion template? I should only have to ask why? If we were to be equal towards everyone, this Wikipedia should have it's article count reduced by four more, at least! As far as I am concerned, this is a rather ridiculous request with absolutely no basis and should be rejected as soon as possible --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lithuanian Wikipedia doesn't have a deletion tag simply because nobody nominated it for deletion yet, you are free to nominate it if you think it should also be deleted. Anyway, your vote is unlikely to be considered as it is your only contribution to Wikipedia so far.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Such great counter-arguments from your side, mon prince, I am truly amazed :) Also, lovely double-standards :D --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lithuanian Wikipedia doesn't have a deletion tag simply because nobody nominated it for deletion yet, you are free to nominate it if you think it should also be deleted. Anyway, your vote is unlikely to be considered as it is your only contribution to Wikipedia so far.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There was once a person who suggested deleting all articles on Wikipedias in other languages. I won't even bother to link that discussion here, if you're interested, you will surely be able find it by yourself. --GedeonWolf (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is about the notability of this specific edition of Wikipedia rather than all of the articles in the series.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That´s political project. So I suggest do delete asap--78.23.154.210 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This Wikipedia (and three more SC wikipedias) were subject of multiple non-trivial published works. -- Bojan Talk 07:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MirkoS18. AfD is not meant for clean-up. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (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.