Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia language code

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. Will move deleted content upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia language code

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks references independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Independent sources The ChampionMan 1234 06:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or alternatively move to WP:Project namespace if deemed useful~~. Ansh666 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Redirect to List of Wikipedias#Wikipedia edition codes. I don't think a move would be useful, since the information is all available on meta.wikimedia.org. Ansh666 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Ehm, the content was split out from there, since it does not apply only to Wikipedia. The codes are used in Wiktionary, Wikibooks etc. Did you actually bother to read the article and tried to understand the topic. TeraCard (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Answer below. Ansh666 00:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, wrong venue. Cited "Wikipedia:Independent sources" is an essay. Applicable policy for AfD is Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and it is not shown that the article meets any of the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. If sources are missing use the appropriate tags, e.g. Template:cn or add the sources. TeraCard (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you're new to AfD, stating that something lacks WP:Independent sources implies that it lacks WP:RS, which would in turn mean the article fails WP:V. That's reason #7 for deletion, "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Ansh666 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm also going to add that it fails WP:GNG because of the above. Ansh666 04:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You derive a lot from an essay. I don't care about the essay, life is too short for this. Relevant are policies and guidelines. Reliable sources are given, all content is verifiable. Wikimedia Meta and Wikimedia Bugzilla are third party for the language codes used in Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikidata. And if I look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable - where does Wikimedia stand? Would you group it as "usually not reliable"?

Further applicable as analogy might be WP:CIRCULAR: An exception is allowed when Wikipedia is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case, and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, avoid undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and avoid inappropriate self-reference. The article text should make it clear that the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is made aware of the potential bias. TeraCard (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my choice to derive that from an essay; it's for the convenience of those who engage in AfD discussions. Also, I would argue that the part of WP:CIRCULAR you cited is moot, since we're talking about Wikimedia in general, not this specific project. In any case, let's take a closer look at how it fits with WP:GNG:

Significant coverage: The only independent source does not mention Wikimedia projects at all.
Reliable: This article is based around primary sources, whereas this part of the GNG states availability of secondary sources are a good indicator of notability. In other words, if this has not been discussed by multiple secondary sources, there is a good indication that the subject is not notable.
Sources: Ditto above - secondary sources are a good indicator of notability. In this case, there are none.
Independent of the subject: This has been discussed already. The sources you use are not independent, as they are from Wikimedia, which decides the usage of these language codes.
Presumed: The article doesn't fail WP:NOT, so it's fine there.

I understand that you put work into this, and you don't want that work to be lost. However, that's not how we judge things around here - there's a set of rules that need to be followed for an article to be accepted. Ansh666 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From your redirect proposal above I understand you did not bother to read the articles involved or were just not able to understand the content. To look at the ISO 639 site and to take the absence of a simple user of the codes as evidence that "Significant coverage" is not met is an even stronger indicator that you don't the nature of the topic and not how ISO works. I stop talking with you. TeraCard (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to both comments, yes, I read the articles involved. I understand that my redirect target is where this was split from (which is why I suggested to put it back). Yet, I fail to see what you're even trying to say. First, I can't find any secondary (non-Wikimedia or non-ISO) sources that discuss this in any notable manner - which indicates it fails WP:GNG. Second, it is absolutely not precedent to keep any article related to Wikipedia or Wikimedia - they have to pass the relevant guidelines (again, WP:GNG). Third, I added a hatnote to Meta:Language codes on the split-off section of List of Wikipedias, a page which serves the exact same purpose as this one, but in a more proper place (this is why I changed to redirect from delete/transwiki). Ansh666 00:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment Article has been moved to Language codes used by Wikimedia projects. Ansh666 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy It seems like this could be fine content as some kind of user essay or on Meta possibly, but this isn't really appropriate for the content of the encyclopedia. Useful, maybe but only for persons interested in the mechanics of Wikipedia. (As an aside, I find it quite interesting.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Already exists on meta, as Meta:Language code. Ansh666 05:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Koavf - Beside your private judgement do you have any objective criteria for deletion? (WP:ILIKE) Do you know that several Wikimedia websites rank in the global top 1000 in alexa? What is the basis for deleting information about technical aspects? There is an article for .org. There is an article for wikipedia. But for the third part of the domain name, the subdomain, you even want a combined article to be removed? I heard about deletionism in Wikipedia, but I didn't know it is that ugly. The content was there for years. Nobody cared. I re-arrange it and people make votes to get the content deleted - without citing any relevant policy. TeraCard (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because while I personally find it interesting, not every aspect of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is itself notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Really more of a WP how-to guide than anything notable enough to be of value to those outside the project space, and the lack of coverage in independent sources is a reflection of that. Stalwart111 00:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wrong assertion: No how-to content there. It is only what-is. TeraCard (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if there would be no 'independent' sources - a lack of that is not a proof that it is not notable. Primary sources can be sufficient. WP:CIRCULAR: An exception is allowed when Wikipedia is being discussed in the article... TeraCard (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrectly mixing verifiability up with notability. Of course WP-related sources are okay for verifying facts in articles about WP-related subjects. But they don't do much for establishing notability which involves determining whether something is worthy of inclusion of not on the basis of coverage in independent reliable sources. Stalwart111 04:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for article space per WP:GNG (its sources, such as documentation, are not independent of Wikipedia); see also WP:SELF. The large table also violates WP:OR because it has several unsourced judgements as to what would be "correct". I would not mind if this were moved to the Wikipedia namespace as an info page or essay of sorts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable, independent sources establish notability for language codes in general but don't establish notability for their use in Wikimedia projects. Doesn't belong in article space. Move to Wikimedia documentation. ~KvnG 05:26, 5 August 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.