Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxmail

Add links
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foxmail

[edit]
Foxmail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost no sources. No claim of notability apart from reported user count, which is of dubious value. It may be that this is notable in China; brought to AfD to establish notability one way or another. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 17:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Found in multiple books (400+), just click the Google Books link above. Some are in English, and many more in Chinese. And Google Books probably doesn't index even 1% of the Chinese books. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any nontrivial coverage in English—many of the hits are merely email addresses that happen to end in @foxmail.com, and none of them really meet the requirements of "significant coverage". This doesn't necessarily mean the subject is not notable, just that there is no evidence of notability in English sources. If a neutral party wishes to evaluate the remaining sources, that would be helpful. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if coverage in each source is one sentence (and it may well be longer, but I don't read Chinese), 2000 news articles plus hundreds of books make it notable taken together. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"; even if you have lots of trivial mentions, they're still trivial (and usually only repeat just the same minimal information.) That's inconsistent with the whole idea WP:SECONDARY of writing an article based on them. Msnicki (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've word counted some randomly selected articles from Google News archive, translated with Google Translate:

According to WP:GNG sources do not have to be in English. These alone are sufficient to satisfy the Wikipedia requirements and there are hundreds more articles like this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could a Chinese speaker add a few references, with a note describing a little bit about what the reference says? Or explain what the references on the Chinese article are? Trilliumz (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about the notability of the sources themselves, see 163.com or sina.com. These aren't some backwater blogs. pconline.cpm doesn't have a Wikipedia page that I can find, but it's the Chinese equivalent of a site like Tom's Hardware. They claim to be number one in China [1] in their niche. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Foxmail is also covered in many introductory Chinese books on Internet, but I don't think Google Translate works on Goolge Books page because they are images. A few books like that which have multi-page coverage of Foxmail: [2] (9 pages) [3] (11 pages) [4] (8 pages) [5] (3 pages). FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comment. I concede that the subject appears notable based on the Chinese sources. But that's not all there is to the question. We also have to be able to write the article. I don't see how that gets done.

    WP:SECONDARY requires, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."

    I understand that we have procedures for dealing with non-English sources WP:NOENG but here's what it says: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." I think this contemplates translating a few sentences, not whole articles.

    We are not building a Chinese wiki, we are building an English wiki. I can see using Chinese sources as citations for a few of the claims but I cannot see writing an entire article based on them. I also cannot see using the Chinese sources as some sort sham evidence of notability but then writing the whole article from primary sources because those are the only ones anyone can read. Msnicki (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree, I think having articles based on Chinese sources makes the encyclopedia even more valuable by making foreign topics accessible to English speakers (assuming of course that the article is properly written). Even if the majority of users cannot check the sources, it's not really a problem as long as a few editors can. Laurent (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, go for it. But consider this my request for the translations per WP:NOENG. I understand the noble goal but I still think you need a practical way of achieving it, consistent with the guidelines. I don't think there is one in this case. Msnicki (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Look, if this software has 30% of the market in China, then obviously sources exist, they just don't exist in English. As long as we have a bilingual editor who's willing to work on it (which apparently we do otherwise the article wouldn't have been created), I don't see a problem. BTW, here are a couple English-language sources we can possibly add to the article.[6][7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume we have a bilingual editor able and willing? Here's what the article looked like before FuFoFuEd added the Chinese sources; it was based on nothing but primary sources in English. And even FuFoFuEd concedes he can't read Chinese. Msnicki (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we assume? Because we're wikipedia, maybe? We do shit like this all the time. I've already notified one chinese-speaking editor I've worked with before to chime in.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AQFK appeared to assume a bilingual editor created the article ("otherwise the article wouldn't have been created"); I don't think either of us was talking about editors who might appear in the future. Msnicki (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made that assumption. I stand corrected. In any case, I notified WP:WikiProject China.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: i don't know what the article looked like before, but it has definite claim to notability and sourcing now. The idea that we can't have an article on something where notability is proven by news sources in Chinese is ridiculous. We do have resources, like editors, who read and write Chinese!--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been shown above that this is clearly a notable topic. Remaining issues with the article can be dealt with by normal editing rather than deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable, via it's large market share and quantity of secondary sources available. I can translate the references into English later today, if that is a significant problem. Ferox Seneca (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WikiLaurent and A Quest for Knowledge. The market share alone (from a 3rd party source) is enough to establish notability, and the interpretation of guidelines regarding foreign language sourcing by Msnicki above is deeply flawed; the guideline explicitly states that English sources are "preferred", not required. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concede I've never before participated in an AfD where all the secondary sources were in another language. So it's entirely possible my understanding of the guidelines is flawed. But it would be helpful and greatly appreciated if you (or anyone else) might be able to respond, hopefully with links, to my concern that the guidelines seem to contemplate translating only a small amount of material. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines contemplate translating only a small amount of material firstly because of copyright laws, and secondly because the time and energy of our multilingual editors is highly valuable and ought not be wasted on WP:POINTy demands.
Sources do not have to be accessible to you, personally, to be valid. They have to be accessible to someone, not everyone. The rule is the same no matter what sort of barrier exists: ink-on-paper sources are not accessible to our blind editors; expensive sources are not accessible to our poor editors; Chinese-language sources are not accessible to our English-only editors. An editor's ignorance of Chinese, or his unwillingness to personally pay for a Chinese translation, does not actually mean that the material unverifiable; it only means that we need to ask someone else to do the verifying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Translations appear to be an exception; it appears those do have to be accessible, if requested. Again, from WP:NOENG, "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors." I should clarify (as I did elsewhere) that my main concern is indeed the copyright issue, also raised in WP:NOENG. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of articles where the sources are in another language, and doing them well seems to be almost hopeless. Anything about quantum physics or number theory... Wnt (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly WP:OTHERSTUFF and I've already changed my !vote anyway. But now you have me intrigued. Can you suggest one of either where every one of the secondary sources is in something other than English? This could be very educational for me. Msnicki (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess my sense of humor didn't translate! Wnt (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I actually enjoy physics and math, so the joke about those being foreign did go right past me. I really did want to see that article. I'm only good at a few things. Quick pickup apparently isn't one of them. Msnicki (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to say, I am prone to agree with the complaint of bias I saw at User talk:Jimbo Wales - things do not need to be notable "in English", and comments like "T'would be better in China" are not helpful. The only "excuse" to be made is that I've seen AfD's just as ridiculous about prominent European companies. According to the article Foxmail amounted to 3 million users, 10% of the Chinese e-mail market at some point (must be more now!) The English Wikipedia should aspire to cover every single thing the Chinese Wikipedia does, and vice versa - the only difference being the language used. Of course that is not practical to accomplish; each Wikipedia is best at researching in its own language - but there is absolutely no virtue in trying to reinforce laziness with stupidity. In the meanwhile let's be happy if we can keep up at least a poor article about the topic. Wnt (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, when I said "reinforce laziness with stupidity", I was saying what I felt we collectively as a group would be doing if we rejected an article simply because it was hard to translate its sources. This comment was not meant to refer to any particular contributor. Wnt (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote. I've agreed all along that the sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I continue to question the practicality and likelihood of producing a worthwhile encyclopedic article in English when every meaningful secondary source is in another language. I think this is likely to end up either largely unverifiable to most users or based pretty much only on the primary sources. But I concede this is strictly an editorial problem and that (a) it's entirely possible I'm too pessimistic and (b) the editorial problem is irrelevant to this decision at AfD.

    Finally, I will add that to me, the complaints of possible bias looked more like examples of it than anything else. For me, it wouldn't have mattered if the sources were in the one other language I can read (sort of); I'd still have had the same concerns. And I agreed with the "better in China" remark as I understood it, namely, a wry, ironic observation that it'd be a simpler question if the resulting article was supposed to be in Chinese as well, the same as the sources. We should be able to talk about these things without chilling the room. I'd have appreciated better demonstration of WP:AGF. Msnicki (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In all this, I still see no sourced claim of notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a 30% share of the chinese market indicates clearly notability. As fare as non english sources are concerned. If some editor has reasonable doubts regarding the content or reliability of the chinese source, he can ask other chinese speaking editors for an assessment (for at WP portals for China or Chinese culture).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's just me, but as a user, a lot of the value of having sources to verify claims isn't just about assuaging any doubts about the content. As a user, I can't remember that I've ever gone to source because I had doubts about whether an article here was true (even though I do it all the time as an editor.) I want the sources for the additional context and because I may want to read them, too, or use them in a citation where I can't use Wikipedia. Verifiability isn't just about keeping us honest, it's also about creating the best, most usable reference material we can. Msnicki (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure where the problem is. Nobody is keeping you from verifying the claims anyway (be it by getting translation help or by searching for other sources). However the fact that you personally might not be able to (easily) verify a particular source due to it being in foreign or highly technical language or simply being offline, doesn't give you the right to delete content in question. Nor can you expect that all sources are always in a form that's easily verifiable to you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is purely a pragmatic, editorial issue, which is why I'm concerned but still !voted keep. The guidelines at WP:NOENG state that if translations are requested, they should be supplied. It also warns, "be careful not to violate copyright." This appears to contemplate translating only small amounts of source material – a few sentences to support a few facts – not entire articles, in keeping with fair use. But in the case at hand, where every meaningful secondary source is in Chinese, I'm skeptical of being able to cite these sources for all the major claims and post those translations (which I take for granted will be requested, hence my slightly pointy remark earlier, "consider this my request for the translations") without violating fair use by translating the entire articles. Once you've translated all the individual sentences needed, what will be left that wasn't translated? I don't think this is what the guidelines contemplated. In addition, I'm rejecting what appears to be an implication in Kmhkmh's remarks that people only want translations because they don't trust Chinese editors; that's ridiculous. Msnicki (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either use Google Translate or (more direct) the Chrome browser. "I don't read the language" isn't an excuse any more. Flatterworld (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous idea, Flatterworld. Why didn't we think of that? Oh, that's right, we did. Perhaps you can show us how to make it work. FuFoFuEd seems pretty sharp but even he was stumped: "Foxmail is also covered in many introductory Chinese books on Internet, but I don't think Google Translate works on Goolge Books page because they are images." Beyond that, it seems unhelpful and dismissive to characterize others' thoughtful comments as "excuses". Msnicki (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately for you, I can translate snark. ;-) There are smartphone ocr apps such as Google Goggles and Cam Translator which might help. (I have no idea which is best, but I expect someone here does, or knows how to find out.) The point is, we need ideas for all such articles, not just this one. Articles about someone in another country are generally first written using that country's language, then translated by Wikipedians into other languages (see Barack obama articles) simply because the interest usually appears in the 'home country' first. That certainly doesn't make it a requirement, but that's why we haven't run into this problem all that often. (I read the Chinese Wikipedia article about Foxmail, as I'm sure the rest of you did, and there isn't much there.) btw - you don't find it odd that ALL the sources are only in Google Books? One I checked appeared to be using Foxmail as a reference/link, not providing information about it, and another was a manual on how to use it. Flatterworld (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be disagreeing with something that bears no obvious relationship to anything I actually said. Bear in mind that I had already !voted to keep, even before you arrived. Your idea of using smartphone apps sounds like your idea for using Google Translate: Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't actually have to do it. Msnicki (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And nothing's possible for the twit only looking for excuses why something can't be done? Whatever. Someday when you're in a better mood you might want to check out the Google Translate blog. Meanwhile, perhaps others actually interested in translations might look into that. Flatterworld (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, Google's translations of Chinese and Arabic are excellent... for a machine. When I started Huáng bǎi I was able to make a lot of sense of portions of the Chinese Wikipedia, despite not knowing enough Chinese to find a toilet. Yes, there are whole paragraphs that are just impossible to figure out - certain types of description just aren't easy for the machine to translate, like how to recognize good huang bai by appearance and aroma. You might get a bit of extra information if you go over these character by character in Wiktionary (which now has a remarkably large collection of Chinese character definitions, though I think it's still hit and miss with multiple character words). But of course, there's no small number of Chinese who can speak English, and if we could recruit them to the project --- and if certain misguided officials would finally give up on trying to stand in their way --- we would have absolutely no trouble at all with stuff like this. Wnt (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG. I think the language issues could be overcome, and do not represent a valid reason for deletion. Anthem 19:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable per WP:GNG, and there is already a reasonable article with pointers to many resources in Chinese and one each in English, French and Dutch. Articles like this one are very important for system administrators with no command of Chinese who are trying to figure out what to do about non-standard emails produced with this client, so I really can't understand why anyone would want to delete this in spite of obvious notability. Hans Adler 23:07, 4 June 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foxmail&oldid=1255445290"