Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Wikipedia (2 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. Miacek's argument that "The lack of sources is not a good argument in case of some online phenomena" is incompatible with the core policy WP:V, which applies to all subjects.  Sandstein  22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Siberian Wikipedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

An original research with close to none about a deleted weird wikipedia version in a "Siberian language", which was, as his creator eventually confessed, together with the "language" itself, one huge hoax, which duped wikimedia gurus for two years despite vocal protests of Russophone wikicommunity againts this abomination. (A fun to read this wikidrama, BTW, two years later: it is amazing how a single dedicated person, with a little help from a couple Russophobes can shrink heads of many supposedly smart people.) There is nothing to write about this project. The reliable sorces are close to none. The previous nomination was ended as "kept" due to concerted efforts of the "Eastern European mailing list", who gave no real arguments whatsoever. The only extra refs found by Colchicum during the previous nom were a couple or articles on regional Russian websites by journalists also duped by Zolotaryov. In summary, this article deserves to be kept only of someone writes a newspaper article "Wikihoax of the Century". - Altenmann >t 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. The article contains at least one ref from a respected person (blog), Paul A. Goble, who took Zolotaryov seriously. But in view of Zolotaryov's confession that the Siberian language was a hoax, the article cannot be a reliable source, especially keeping in mind that there is no way to write a neutral and truthful article basing on wikipedia rules. - Altenmann >t 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  —- Altenmann >t 22:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable wiki-drama. No reliable sources (I don't think one half-credible Russian news source will suffice, and blogs are not reliable sources regardless). LokiiT (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And where are the 'reliable sources' for, say, Lithuanian Wikipedia or Russian Wikipedia? Is the lack of dead-tree sources an argument here? -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that a hoax site was created and deleted doesn't meet wikipedia's criteria for notability. If it did, we would be able to do a little better in the sources department. Speaking of which, I'm positive we could find more than enough reliable sources to verify the notability of the Russian and Lithuanian wikipedias. However this is obviously not necessary, just as sourcing the fact that "water is wet" would not be necessary, since you can simply go there and observe for yourself the existence and notability of those wikis. LokiiT (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ou are mistaken. "Water is wet" does noit need reference, but you can easily find it. - Altenmann >t 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Since it was not a real project, and we don't have sources which describe what it actually was, the article would fail to verifiably correct article. References from meta discussions are insufficient. Xuz (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wikipedia and permprot against moves or editing. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I really can't see what's the problem with that article. Is someone (unfoundedly) bashful because a hoax could survive so long as a Wikipedia edition? That the language is a hoax does not mean the article on that hoax should be deleted, does it? There are few sources available concerning this online thingy but where are the sources for other (minor) Wikipedias? They all deserve an article, I think. The 'Siberian language' edition of Wikipedia was a bundle that I would have voted for deletion, of course, yet it seems to deserve a mention in a number of Wikipedias (see iw links), and should have a place here in English Wikipedia, too. The lack of sources is not a good argument in case of some online phenomena, cf Russian Wikipedia, Macedonian Wikipedia. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 13:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained what is the problem with the article: no sources to make it correct. There is even no sources to prove that it was deleted. I am sure you are aware that wikis, including wikipedia, are not admissible sources for our articles. I would see no problem with existence of this article, just as we have other articles about wikipedia related scandals, but it is just nonnnotable. - Altenmann >t 22:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources&mdash;no article.  That simple.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:03, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I said in the first AfD, the noted analyst of Russian and Eurasian affairs Paul A. Goble discusses Siberian Wikipedia in his blog. Blogs are an acceptable source if written by an established expert in the field, and the topic is in the area of his expertise. Even if it was a hoax and Goble was misled, it makes no difference since hoaxes can also be notable, see List of hoaxes. --Martin (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How can one be an expert in the area of a fake language? This so-called "Siberian language" is hardly a matter of "Russian and Eurasian affairs" (which is what Goble's expertise is).  I don't see how this blog qualifies as a source, and since no other reliable sources are available, the hoax cannot be considered notable; as per our own notability standards.  A relevant blog in this case would be one of a person of some renown who studies the phenomenon of artificial and fake languages.  Goble is hardly such a person.  Just a thought.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * delete - the subject is a nonnotable hoax, which did not find adequate coverage in any media. (that someone was duped does not count). Dzied Bulbash (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to wikipedia space or delete. The hoax clearly does not pass the threshold for the mainspace notability. On the other hand for wikipedians the history is quite interesting and useful. Thus, the article IMHO should be moved to wikipedia space and expanded there (we do not have to obey WP:RS outside the mainspace) Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Siberian Wikipedia was covered by Russian media. It should be also restored in Wikipedia because its deletion was organized by a flash mob from ru_wiki. A couple of ru_wiki users posted invitations to vote against Siberian Wikipedia. It was a very interesting and unique project. SA ru (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an interesting project "how low can you go"; how long can you troll and abuse wikipedia. Russian media is not an expert in linguistics: it happily ate what zolotaryov fed them. Now it is known it was a hoax, and as such the project has no notability. - Altenmann >t 06:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How does the project being a hoax (presumably) relate to the absence of its notability? Regardless of whether you like/dislike the idea, it was noted by Russian media (for example, here). Isn't that notability? SA ru (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: It should be also restored in Wikipedia because its deletion was organized by a flash mob from ru_wiki. A couple of ru_wiki users posted invitations to vote against Siberian Wikipedia I disagree. There is no such thing as Siberian Russian language, some of the words were just coined/given a new meaning by Zolotaryov. RE: How does the project being a hoax (presumably) relate to the absence of its notability? Regardless of whether you like/dislike the idea, it was noted by Russian media I agree. Hoax does not imply non-notability. After all, if it were such a non-notable case, why all those iw articles?.-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there is no such thing as Siberian language. There is such a thing. Siberian language was invented by Yaroslav Zolotarev, and he pretty successfully implemented it in his project. He also had a number of followers. The mob from ru_wiki wanted to kill the project simply because they claimed that nobody in Russia speaks this language. But this is not the point. Why cannot Zolotarev develop a wiki-project using the language he created? SA ru (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "real" Siberian language, to have a wikipedia in it. There are thousands conlangs of 2-4 enthusiasts, Zolotaryov's no better. Timurite (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Siberian language" is not a real one, but an artificial language created by Yaroslav Zolotarev. There are no other notable "Siberian languages" supported by "2-4 enthusiasts". Do I understand correctly that you suggest that minorities should be discriminated, in this case the minority of "Russiphobis enthusiasts" (your comment below)? SA ru (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. undue weight to a deleted project of a single Russiphobis enthusiast. Less impact than Klingon Wikipedia. Almost none balanced coverage of the subject in media. Timurite (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I worked with Yaroslav Zolotarev on a wiki-project, and I can assure you that he is not a "Russipobis enthusiast". As far as no "balanced" coverage in the media, in actuality Siberian language was sufficiently covered in the media. For example: 1, 2, 3. It was also covered in numerous blogs and wiki-encyclopedias. SA ru (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, allow me, a "moskalska svoloch" in sib-wiki terminology, to disbelieve you. Good to know that you are one of these trolls. -<: Timurite (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2009 (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.