Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadèmia Siciliana


 * 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 no consensus. Cutting through the drama imported from itwiki, there is no consensus on whether the sources cited in the article are enough to satisfy the GNG. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Cadèmia Siciliana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Heavily canvassed article, violating WP:COI. Definitely fails WP:GNG, out of 5 external sources, just 2 are actually independent though local and way too recent, thus failing WP:NOTNEWS. Finally it definitely fails WP:ORG. Talkpage discussion stales on the false shifting of notability from the language to anyone dealing with it. Vituzzu (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am an administrator on Commons. The image Logo Cadèmia Siciliana, Inc..png is a copyvio from cademiasiciliana.org, I've just deleted it on Commons. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I solved the licensing issues by contacting the authors, and reuploaded it. -- dapal(write me @) 21:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. I contacted the author of Logo Cadèmia Siciliana, Inc..png, who kindly published a page specifying the license, which is amongst the ones accepted by Wikipedia, and it still gets a deletion warning? This seems like a groundless, gratuitous attack to me. --dapal(write me @) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When I noticed the image was back up, I followed the link to make sure all was in order with image copyright, and clearly it was - so for someone to then slap a deletion notice on it beggars belief. What is going on here?!  Surely it's not asking too much that the policies be applied in a coherent manner.πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  23:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Issue solved, it seems like it was a genuine mistake! --dapal(write me @) 09:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am yet to understand how an image without license can affect notability of a subject (academic society for this matter). Should we delete every article that have its image deleted on commons? –Ammarpad (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This could use additional participation. All the independent sources are in Italian.
 * Keep: I'm an admin on scn.wiki and have been following the work of the Cademia for a while because of my interest in the Sicilian language - but I would not have thought that that of itself would qualify as a conflict of interest.  Furthermore, despite a few accusations flying around, I did not write any of the articles on the Cademia in any of scn.wiki, it.wiki or en.wiki, nor am I a member of the Cademia, nor do I have any role within the Cademia.  I follow what they do from afar (from Australia to be precise).  From what I can gather, the Cademia does exist, that is not in doubt, and its board comprises experts in the field of linguistics.  Also the claim above that only 2 of 5 external sources are independent appears to be false. Apart from producing a proposal for a Sicilian orthography, it is on the public record that both Firefox and Facebook have been working directly with Cademia to have Sicilian included within their offerings, and that gives some weight to the Cademia's standing, at least in the IT field.  The last point I would like to make, is that a number of wikipedians (from it.wiki) have weighed in with the deletion notice, but each time offering conflicting reasons, in at least one case, an absurd reason, which does suggest something is afoot on that front (and one needs only to read the talk page on the it.wiki article on the Sicilian language to gauge the antipathy directed at Sicilian from some quarters of the it.wiki community). I don't really like to bring up such distasteful goings on here, but I believe it is part of the milieu of the present exercise. πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  00:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll abstain from commenting about conspirationism, though it must be noted that who started the AfD (me!) speaks Sicilian on a daily basis.
 * Existence doesn't imply notability. Yep, only 2 out of 5 sources are independent: generally, interviews cannot be considered independent. Finally having no external sources is hard to tell "that both Firefox and Facebook have been working directly with Cademia" since translations at both organisation are volunteer-based, open and collaborative. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I fail to see how the referenced interviews are not independent, given it's not proven that the interviewees and the interviewers are linked. I consider all the references given as third-party. I do agree it's a small and relatively new organization, but it passes WP:RECENT. We should also consider that its field of action is superspecialized: we can't expect massive international coverage, given that Sicilian is a minority language. This should also lower the quantity of citations needed for being considered having significant coverage. I also just found one more reference to the organization, related to CLDR, which I'm going to add to the article. --dapal(write me @) 23:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised by you opinion since you're [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20110330095600&contribs=user&target=Dapal&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=&end= pushing Cademia through en.wiki]. Anyway, no "lowering of GNG for anyone dealing with minority languages" can be inferred from policies, still, lowering cannot mean "zeroing" or "five mentions are enough". --Vituzzu (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? Don't I have the same voting right as others? If I keep working on Cadèmia-related articles it's just because I believe it's worthwhile. --dapal(write me @) 08:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep English sources for this must be very scarce but in itself an organization for promoting minority language should have an article on educational project Wikipedia. Two of the sources are agree upon to be truly independent and this is indicator of existence of more–Ammarpad (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interviews may be suspect if used to support statements about a subject ("I don’t make money from Russia" does not help to establish that the interviewee never took Russian money), but they are fine for establishing notability. --Lambiam 12:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AfD are serious matters, not the place to joke in random ways. Interviews on a bunch of local online news sites aren't both independent (since they actually just report subjects' views) and are definitely not a significant coverage. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me just state that I disagree on both counts. --Lambiam 09:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Recentism, local sources, cross-wiki spam and evidently not notable association, sources not considerable, Canvassing between users like and, for example, Dapal and the author. A encyclopedia is a serious thing, not a box for personal POV.--Kirk39 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. As other just said: cross-wiki SPAM, recentism, local sources, evidently not notable association. A private no-profit founded by the author of the article, which has no authorithy above Sicilian language, at any level, and is not recognised by anybody in Sicily, in Italy, in Europe nor in the whole world. Wikipedia is not a place for doing promotion. By the way the accusation of Pippu d'Angelo are rather disgusting. I fully support the Italian regional languages and I think they should be preserved and teached in the public schools; I like Sicilian language and I actually think the Cadèmia Siciliana is a good initiative. But as a Wikipedian I must stand aginst SPAM and promotional content on Wikipedia. I send back the accusations, asking why a sysop on scn.wiki don't even know the basic guidelines of the project, uploading copyrighted material on Commons and writing blatantly inacceptable articles on scn.wiki. You're discrediting the whole project and preventing the Sicilian speakers to have a quality, reliable encyclopaedia in their language. --Phyrexian ɸ 17:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You and Kirk need to re-read the recentism policy, quite clearly, the contents of this article does not come within the ambit of that policy in any way, shape or form. As to it.wiki's  antipathy directed at Sicilian, one needs only to read the Lingua siciliana  talk page on it.wiki to know what I'm talking about. πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  22:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And you need te re-read the policies linked by Vituzzo opening this page: WP:COI; WP:GNG; WP:NOTNEWS; WP:ORG. And also to (re?)read WP:5P, expecially the fisrt and fourth. About your nasty accusations: do you read the nicknames Phyrexian, Kirk or Vituzzu in the Lingua siciliana talk page on it.wiki? I do not. --Phyrexian ɸ 23:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Oh wow. This got really intense. I have a genuine question, I think notability guidelines on the Italian Wikipedia are more strict than English language one. Am I correct? I've noticed that the Keepers are all EN Wikipedians and the Deleters are all IT Wikipedians. I personally have witnessed those stricter standards there. This is NOT an attack, I am 100% curious and I don't know where to ask such a question in order to seek consensus. I think everyone needs to remember to Assume good faith, clearly everyone here is interested in Sicilian, we can reach compromises. Furthermore, a lot of us are part of WikiProject Sicily and Sicilian language related material, we can collaborate to reach balanced consensus driven content that is encyclopedic. I'm trying to do that as well with the Draft:Sicilian_orthography and your input would be appreciated. Paolorausch (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You honestly think the topic "Cadèmia Siciliana" (aka your private organization) is relevant enought that should be described in an encyclopaedia? So why you're not trying to push it in the Treccani or the Encyclopædia Britannica? This sound to be completly absurd? Yeah, the same seem to me. Or you're just trying to get some free visibility? If my questions sound rethorical to you, assuming good faith is quite hard in this case. --Phyrexian ɸ 23:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oof. I've been editing and contributing to Sicilian related content for over 10 years now, please don't attack me personally. Yes, I would appreciate if you assume GF and if everyone here stopped making ad hominem attacks. That IS a wikipedia policy WP:5P4. The conversation is about notability, if I didn't think that just like other related topics that have passed notability this article wasn't notable I would support deletion. But on the English Wikipedia as several people have said the notability guidelines here are consistent with this organisation's notability. The guidelines to be included in Treccani and EB are different than Wikipedia, I'm sure you're quite aware of this fact. As cool as it would be to see Minority Language non-profits and Regulatory agencies in EB and Treccani, I'm sure you're aware that their scope is much more limited. CSFLS, ARLeF etc don't even have Treccani articles and those are government recognised and supported institutions. Although I respect your point that CS is not important enough for Treccani or EB, their objectives are not Wikipedia Notability Guidelines and it's not a valid comparison in the context of this AfD Debate.Paolorausch (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * delete. Not relevant. It doesn't add anything to both Sicilian and Italian culture, and frankly I don't see how does this page can look anything different from a promotional flyer. We are bordering the speedy deletion. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 08:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * delete The keep arguments are either tainted by involvement in promoting this organisation or wishful thinking /assertions. The analysis of the sources are that this isn't notable and all the accusations of its defenders do not take away the air of spam. If you want this kept you gave to demonstrate that this clearly meets the GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 14:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Sicilian language - I'm at a disadvantage because I don't speak Italian, but did run the titles through Google translate, and visited each site. What I've seen doesn't suggest there's enough coverage to satisfy WP:ORG. I don't see anything that looks like indepth coverage such as foundational history, and none of the sources appear to be journalistic entities such as Italian newspapers. I Googled several of the top Italian newspapers with the organization's name, and found nothing. I'd like to see some coverage in the Italian mainstream press; short of that, my vote is to merge and redirect content to Sicilian language. One other note - this is a fairly new group and has only presented its orthographical proposal for the Sicilian language - maybe WP:TOOSOON applies also, until it is accepted and put into use. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.