Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eusko


 * 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. Enough consensus to be closed as keep, my reason for relisting was to get just some more consenus due to the votes based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. has also added some more sources to the article. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Eusko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about novelty currency used in a local area. It is not an official currency, article contains no reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE due diligence I have found one article about it at. Which does not meet the requirements for WP:GNG. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It does seem to be covered by multiple reliable sources in French.

My personal view is that foreign-language sources should not be used in WP, except maybe to tip unclear decisions about notability towards 'keep', or for untranslated primary sources. An encyclopedia's objective is to give an overview of the subject but also references to consult for further reading, and it should not be assumed that readers of the English WP can understand anything else than English.

I do understand it would condemn to deletion many articles that are of significant local interest and make the delights of the random article page, like this one; and breaking cultural barriers is, after all, part of the encyclopedic project (understood in Diderot's way). Nonetheless, it seems to me creating the only source of knowledge on the subject in English constitutes a form of original research.

This being said, guidelines do allow for foreign language sources if I remember correctly, so I will reluctantly obey by them. - EDIT 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC): I did remember correctly, WP:NONENG.


 * The article could certainly be improved: sources are lacking, the 1.4% inflation figure seems dubious (remember, this currency is pegged to the euro - does the Basque area experience such inflation, well over the Eurozone's average? and who measured it?). I see no problem with notability though. Tigraan (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Weak Keep Plenty of other local currencies have their own page despite relatively limited use. Dtellett (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Beware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. You might have a point that a local currency is not automatically non-notable, but it is not automatically notable either. Tigraan (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep or merge: while it hard to asses the significance to the local area due to foreign language refs, I would interpret the need to prove notability less strictly than it were a theory or a fiction. For example, would a river have to prove notability? it is mentioned briefly in this English language artice An alternative solution could be merging with the regions article. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The comparison to a river is not a good one as they have a completely different standard for notability. Wikipedia is not about everything that exists it is about what reliable sources have written about whether it be in books, newspapers, magazines or even television programs. A better example to perhaps compare this to, would be Canadian Tire money.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is kind of my point, different subjects have different guidelines and ways of interpreting the guide lines. The question we need to answer what standard of notability should be applied to a currency? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my post, this passes GNG, so no specific guideline needs to be invoked... provided that we accept French-speaking sources (see rant). The Libération article alone could be enough for notability: Libération is a major national newspaper here, the article is devoted to eusko, and it is a reportage which means it needed some kind of investigation (of course, talking with old Basque ladies is easier that getting close to chemical weapons in Syria - my point is that the newspaper sent someone and took a financial risk, it is not press-release-into-article journalism). Tigraan (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep It's an alternative currency like the Disney Dollar or Tumin, so I think there's no problem with notability. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. This is bigger than the "Disney dollar" or run of the mill local trade scrip. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not come too harsh on nominator: I improved sourcing greatly since nomination, and you cannot do WP:BEFORE in a language you do not know. Tigraan (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have relisted this discussion because quite a few of the votes are solely based on the fact that other alternative currencies have articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Esquivalience t 03:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG and since there are no special requirements of notability for currencies that is all we need. Also, I wouldn't say this is a "novelty" currency, it seems to be the real deal from what I've read. Here are some more sources to establish notability: [1 ] [2 (primary source) ][3 ][4 ][5 ][6 ][7 ][8 ][9 ]-War wizard90 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2015 (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.