Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Wikipedia (3rd nomination)

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. Redirection and/or addition of content to other approrpiate articles is left to editorial process. ÷seresin 23:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article was deleted at AFD 2 but this was voided and relisted by DRV after wholesale socking was discovered in the discussion. Since this is a procedural listing as the admin closing the DRV I offer no opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article about a non-notable hoax. PatGallacher (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A couple of blog entries do not constitute significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources actual include quite a number of other web postings included in earlier versions of the article; though individually not authoritative, the net sum of them can in my opinion be considered usable DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The earlier revisions of the article don't seem to contain any additional references, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you list some of these sources here? — Rankiri (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially no third-party sourcing. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• We shouldn't have an article with this title. But should it not be covered in the List of wikipedias? And if we agree that it should, then ought we not to have a redirect?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hoax, possible. Non-notable, not necessarily. There are sources enough to warrant inclusion. At this stage, the article is way too short and too little informative, but that can be fixed. Besides, I've never liked the habit of nominating an article for deletion shortly after a previous nomination resulted in a "keep" decision. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, definitely! See Languages of Russia, there is no mention of any such language as "Siberian", there are several languages spoken in Siberia. PatGallacher (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually meant was this: whatever you may think of Siberian, it ís a fairly complete and elaborate constructed language, and as far as I know, the material it was based on ís Siberian dialectic material. Sure, call it an effort to artificially create a new language from hardly existing (or non-existing nowadays) dialects, but that in itself doesn't make it a hoax. I am aware that Zolotaryov has written at some point that it was a hoax, but he has written quite a lot; that doesn't really prove anything either. I don't want to exclude the possibility that it was a genuine effort after all. But that's not the point, because hoax or not, the project has acquired a certain notability - just enough to warrant an article, either about the Siberian language, or about the Siberian Wikipedia project, which describes both. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a very minor WP language version which was deleted, as far as I can tell from the discussion, due to the language not existing! Doesn't seem to have been an especially significant event, even within the very narrow context of the history of Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it is not true that the language doesn't exist. In fact, it dóes exist, which is proven by a fairly elaborate website and a (for conlang standards at least) huge dictionary. Also, I'd like to note that there are a few third-party sources. I don't know what the requirements are for an article about a WP project, but I'd say they are enough for an article about the language. Frankly, I'd much rather see an article about the language, and this one deleted or turned into a redirect to it. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 19:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but I've asked before and I don't think it's going to happen. Note that its AfD's were even crazier than this article's. —Soap— 19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of third party coverage, obviously. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, minor incident of somebody using Wikipedia for a fringe POV project; not enough outside coverage in quality sources to make this incident notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this has received little notice in reliable sources; not enough coverage to demonstrate any notability outside the Wikipedia project. ~ mazca ^talk 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The hoax is notable for the large amount of sockpuppetry and flaming and the culture change it did on wikipedia policy. Patcat88 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So? Outside sources barely noticed it. Abductive (reasoning) 22:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, insufficient sourcing. One source is a 404, another a blog. Abductive (reasoning) 22:45, 29 April 2010 (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.