Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia language code
- Wikimedia language code (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)
Lacks references independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Independent sources TheChampionMan1234 06:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Delete
or alternatively move to WP:Project namespace if deemed useful. Ansh666 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'm also going to add that it fails WP:GNG because of the above. Ansh666 04:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Procedural comment Article has been moved to Language codes used by Wikimedia projects. Ansh666 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)