Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TermWiki


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

TermWiki

 * – ( View AfD View log )

NN. Little-to-no in-depth coverage beyond a few blogs/press releases/promotional sources. Antigng (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  I retrieved the article from https://www.academia.edu/12143585/TermWiki_survol_d_un_outil_terminologique_pas_comme_les_autres. This is a 594-word review of TermWiki in a French magazine. It is cited on page 299 of Handbook of Terminology, Volume 1, a John Benjamins Publishing Company book. From Google Translate: "In itself, the platform is easy to master: you must first create a file in English, then offer equivalences in other languages. However, we have noticed that most of the definitions that are not written in English are translations. ... TermWiki also has an infuriating number of typos as a “first step”. In addition, the tabs and divisions of the site are innumerable, which makes navigation sometimes complicated, and some pages are not translated. ... Unveiled to the public in May 2011 by CSOFT, the free version of TermWiki already has more than 11 million terms in 75 languages and millions of users. So while the terminology tool is still in its infancy, it has potential if the global community"  This is a 368-word review of TermWiki in a Romanian journal article. The review notes: "In our opinion, Termwiki is a complex cloud-based terminology management tool, a good solution for professionals and enterprises and an excellent training ground for students. It is also a successful online open community of terminologists outstanding activity consists of glossaries in 102 languages, classified in 1 716 categories, and comprising 5 610 207 terms."  The journal article can be accessed by creating an account on Central and Eastern European Online Library. The journal article provides three sentences of coverage of TermWiki: "In the point of view of terminology, the most interesting Wiki project is maybe TermWiki, which is a free, multiple-language, online, collective terminology database. The reason TermWiki is new and interesting is because it combines the features of collective free multiple language dictionaries and features of popular social network sites. TermWiki allows non-professionals, professionals, terminologists and translators to share knowledge, edit pages of terms or create brand new pages."  The book provides four sentences of coverage about TermWiki. The book notes: "[two sentences about TermWiki] Although the open version of TermWiki presents a vast and interesting collection of layperson-generated term records on a wide range of subjects, it is unclear the extent to which professional terminologists actually consult or make use of this collection. However, TermWiki also offers private, professional versions that could be used internally within an organization by a 'closed crowd' in a manner similar to that of the MTCF described above." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TermWiki to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC) </ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard's excellent digging for sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. The sources provided by Cunard. Best, Taung Tan (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.