Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volapük Wikipedia (2nd 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 Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Unfortunately, the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that is necessary for inclusion just isn't there. The best source in there is an Economist article which mentions the automated creation of articles; it appears that the Volapük Wikipedia is hardly known for anything but this event, and even that is precarious. Many of the "keep" !voters attempt to make a case for WP:IAR, and indeed the content is of interest to Wikipedians, hence the following solution. I am moving the article to Volapük Wikipedia without redirect, while creating a redirect at Volapük Wikipedia to List of Wikipedias. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Volapük Wikipedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Four years after the first discussion, which ended in no consensus, with most keep votes based on "it's a large Wikipedia version", but none actually adressing WP:GNG, this page still has not a single reliable, independent source. That it has so many articles is mainly due to bot-generated articles; but there is nothing that makes this a notable website, and applying different rules for Wikipedia-related articles than for other ones is not correct. Fram (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep I had a good search around for sources, but couldn't find anything better than this Times of India "source", which isn't actually a source at all. Not every Wikipedia is notable to have an article, so there's no real shame in this one not having one either. People will still find it if they need to. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The sourcing is weak at the moment, but Languages on the internet The keenest Wikipedians discusses this wiki with a good bit of depth and may tip the scales. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that, would make a good source for our list of Wikipedias, and makes it clear that the Volapuk Wikipedia is a bit of a scam, as it is bot generated content good for basically nothing and no one. It's more than a passing mention, but not really sufficient to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. 13:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Now that is has reliable sources there is no rationale to delete. Also, it's one of the better written articles about an individual Wikipedia. --MarsRover (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - A solid contribution to Wikipedia scholarship. Nitpicking this on the basis of sources is shortsighted and amounts to the worship of rules and regulations at the cost of common sense. Rather than kowtowing to the lower-level guidelines, we should keep in this case in accord with the higher level policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And how is Wikipedia improved by ignoring rules that apply to all articles but not for a bot-filled other Wikipedia version? Nepotism isn't really what WP:IAR was created for. If you consider this article "a solid contribution to Wikipedia scholarship", move it to the Wikipedia namespace. Articles that are for 99 percent sourced to internal sources and blogs are not really an improvement for an encyclopedia. This has little to do with common sense, but then, that isn't the reason that you appear at this specific AfD of course. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised at the implication of, what?, that I have some sort of fundamental beef with you and am following you around or something. No. I'm a consistent advocate of Wikipedia documenting its own history for future scholarship. If that means that we let some articles slide that are internally sourced, my feeling is "tough tits — as long as it is accurate." Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just using common sense, which seems to be infallible in your opinion. It isn't, of course. Fram (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger into Volapük or List of Wikipedias. This is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with Colonel Warden. Kumioko (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Before we all get carried away with "Snow keep", I feel I need to point out that a number of sources are from the Wikimedia Foundation, which here is a primary source, and not significant, independent coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Similarly, other sources are from Flickr images or forum posts - which are self-published sources and cannot generally be used either. While Tarc's source is a good source, I don't really think that's enough to tip it over the notability guidelines, so at the moment, all I see is a non-notable subject with not many sources turned into a non-notable subject with lots of unsuitable sources. Sorry. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep If the aforementioned source does not tip the scales of notability, the following certainly should. The Volapük Wikipedia caused undeniable stir within the Wikimedia community, even getting attention from key Wikipedians Jimmy Wales and Chuck Smith. The reference to a self-published Flickr page is necessary to illustrate the case in which Volapük was featured as well as other simple facts about the event not published elsewhere (location, date, etc.). All other "non-notable" sources used in the article (Wikimedia Foundation, Volapükalised, etc.) are either references to statistical facts about the edition or to discussions about it between prominent volapükologists or Wikipedians, for which there are no alternative sources. Several other articles make generous use of references to primary sources published by the Wikimedia Foundation or to similarly relevant "self-published" mailing lists, including Wikipedia and OpenBSD. Yet they are good/featured articles! WP:PRIMARY explicitly states that "a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.", so it is inaccurate to call them "unsuitable sources" on this article. Anyway, the Volapük Wikipedia did get independent, third-party coverage required to pass WP:GNG on the Internet (PC World Poland, Libera Folio, and The Public Domain Review) as well as in at least three books. Summa summarum, it still has more references than one would expect from an edition of Wikipedia in a language with as few speakers and as little public awareness in the last century, and I strongly believe that both WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE would suffice to grant this article rights to existence given its historical impact on the Wikimedia community alone. Since "our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers" and because "the principle of the rules is to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive", I say "keep". Just my two cents as this article's main contributor. --Iketsi (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, no - WP:IAR does not apply here. The problem with keeping this article without proper sourcing is that you'll be puffing it up to make it more important than it really is - which fails WP:NPOV. The article should talk about Volapük Wikipedia from a disinterested layman's point of view, not a Wikipedia fanboy's, and if you don't have the sources to do so ... you'll need to wait until you have! Anyway, fortunately you have supplied some sources which contribute towards notability. The PC World source looks good, and so does that the Libera Folio, but the Public Domain Review is about the language, with a brief passing mention to the Wikipedia, so I wouldn't deem that acceptable. So we've just got about four sources that are significant and independent to tip it into WP:GNG. I'd remind people that the state of the state of other articles is never a convincing argument, and a primary source can be used to verify facts, but it fails WP:GNG on the "independent" criteria. Uncle G's notability essay is a good one to read. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral There are some really awful sourcing issues there. Whether there is a real article in there trying to escape I am not sure. Let's try removing all self refs and primary refs and see what is left. --John (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Still need a bit more time to evaluate the quality of the sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Firstly, I don't understand the issue here. There are 96 articles about Wikipedia language editions. Most of them don't mention any source but Wikipedia itself. This article is more informative and lists a much higher number of sources. As for notability, I remember there has been an entire programme about this subject on the Dutch national radio a few years ago (I was asked to participate, but couldn't). Obviously, the sources used in this article are not the New York Times, but please, people, let's not overdo it. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  00:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on it having over 100,000 articles. I think those with over 100,000 are typically worthy of coverage.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Delete Based on Aymatth's findings that it is an obscure wikipedia with mainly bot generated articles and a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources.♦  Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I took the 51 citations, cut out all the wiki sources, blogs and articles that do not mention the Volapük Wikipedia or just note its existence. That leaves four sources.
 * The Economist mentions the 119,091 auto-translated articles
 * An academic paper about Wikipedia also mentions the over-100,000 auto-translated stubs
 * The Esperanto "Libera Folio" magazine has a full story on the auto-creation bot and its author
 * PC World (Polish) briefly mentions the auto-creation
 * So when we cut out all the self-published stuff, we just have this one news item. The story is more about Sergio Meira, the bot creator, than about Volapük Wikipedia. If the article were pruned down to the information provided by independent sources about the Volapük Wikipedia it would read, in its entirety:
 * The Volapük Wikipedia is a version of Wikipedia in the Volapük constructed language. Until recently it had less than 1,000 entries. In 2007 an enthusiast for this language used a computer program to automatically generate over 100,000 articles, mostly very short.[1][2][3]
 * For comparison, imagine an article that reads:
 * TenisBwrdd.cy is a Welsh-language website about ping-pong. Until recently it had less than 1,000 entries. In 2007 a ping-pong enthusiast used a computer program to automatically generate over 100,000 articles, mostly very short.[1][2][3]
 * One minor event is not enough to warrant an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would like to point out that the Vükiped is not the only Wikipedia edition that used bots to create massive amounts of articles. Several other projects (for example Italian IIRC) have done the same, and my own home project (Dutch) is full of them, too. Personally, I am kind of fascinated by all the reactions. I am pretty sure that if the Wikipedia edition in, say, Amharic or Irish, had done the same thing, reactions wouldn't have been as sharp as they are now. The only possible conclusion is that the reason why so many people were/are upset about this, is that Volapük is a constructed language. Which makes the whole discussion quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. Same thing here: Category:Wikipedias by language contains articles about 97 different projects, of which I just opened 15 of them randomly (both bigger and smaller projects). And guess what? Most of them link ONLY to Wiki[p/m]edia pages, and only a very small amount of them contain links to so-called "reputable news sources". The article in question is both more elaborate AND better sourced than almost all the others, which, again, makes me wonder why we're having this discussion about this very page. I'd like to note that the fact that WP.VO has 119,000 articles does not make it notable in itself, but all the discussions about that, both on Meta and elsewhere, do. Secondly, it should be mentioned that the recurring number of 20 speakers shouldn't be taken for granted. If you look at the Volapük mailing list and the number of people who have contributed to WP.VO, it is more than obvious that the actual number of active Volapük users must be many times higher. At last, if we take the number of 107,000 bot-generated articles for granted, this leaves us still with 12,000 user-created articles - quite a respectable number by any standard. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  23:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that other articles on Wikipedia languages editions are worse is irrelevant. We are in the position of a company or politician that finds itself in a conflict on interest. We must be scrupulous in following the rules that we ourselves have set.  Internal discussions cannot possibly make a topic notable. The only relevant question is whether the website has been  sufficiently discussed by reliable independent sources. It has not. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it isn't because it has 119,000 articles that's it's notable, but I was under the impression that we generally accept articles on other wikipedias on here, especially those with a reasonably number of articles so I just assumed it is probably notable without looking into the sources. But if most articles are practically empty and bot generated and the wikipedia really has a frighteningly low number of decent independent sources then I think Aymatth has a valid point for deletion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article cites only four independent sources, all about the one stub generation incident. No source has written anything else about any other aspect of the Volapük Wikipedia, which is not surprising since it is just another obscure Wikipedia. The article relies almost entirely on internal self-published material, not acceptable for any article. Maybe the Home Hardware 4" Standard Ardox Spiral Nail is an important product to Home Hardware, the subject of various internal memos. That does not mean it gets an article. We should follow our own rules, particularly with articles about Wikipedia. They have to meet standard notability guidelines.  Aymatth2 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, have to meet ... guidelines is kind of a contradiction. Notability criteria indeed are just guidelines, not rules. Verifiability on the other hand is. And it is nonsense that discussions on Meta about the Volapük Wikipedia cannot serve as primary sources, because that's precisely what they are. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  14:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * An article in Wikipedia about an aspect of Wikipedia, such as this, should conform to higher standards then most. The fact that this article is about one of our websites does not mean we can ignore all our own rules.  We should be particularly careful not to give ourselves special treatment.  The bulk of the content should derive from reliable independent sources.  There should be enough independent coverage to establish notability. In this case, there is just one minor story on stub generation. That is not enough.  Aymatth2 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. In that case, I suggest moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. That's what the German Wikipedia did. Iketsi (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support moving the article to the WP namespace. Even though the topic does not meet our general notability guidelines, it does seem to be of interest to editors. The subjects of bot-generated articles and auto-translation are certainly significant within the project, even if broader public is not particularly interested. Not sure what the best location would be... Aymatth2 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep in mainspace. It's time we stopped applying an especially high standard to topics related to WP. I'm saying essentially the opposite of Aymatth2. Everyone expects us to cover aspects of our movement, and moving them to WP space, tho better than nothing, is not necessary . What matters is that what we write be objective. Objectivity and NPOV is important--whether or not we have an article much less so.   DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article would never survive if it were about any other website. It would not have a snowball's hope. The sourcing is atrocious and cannot remotely be considered objective or neutral. Hardly any independent sources have paid any attention to this topic, and they only discussed the incident of the auto-generated articles. It is appropriate for us to present our views, principles, policies, approach etc. in our namespace. It is completely inappropriate for us to present this in the form of an article. If any other company tried to pull a trick like this, we would boot them out right away.


 * The analogy is an online newspaper. They will have an "About" section that talks about their management, philosophy, finances and so on. They will have clearly identified editorials and blogs.  But if the main news and information sections are full of uncritical blog-type articles about the publisher, they destroy their credibility. We should not make that mistake. Mainspace articles should be based on reliable independent sources. What we say about Wikipedia outside mainspace in our "about" and editorial sections is a different question. Let's not confuse the two.  Aymatth2 (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. I must admit I naturally think having an article about any of our wikipedias is fine in principal and as DGG says, you'd expect us to cover them. The article itself I think is useful and it would be shame to delete, but as Aymatth2 says, technically the sourcing is atrocious and most sourcing is self referencing. If we are to treat it fairly as an encyclopedia article I think it doesn't have the coverage in independent publications which would make it acceptable. I think the question we really need to ask is would wikipedia be better off having it deleted, and I'm not sure it would in terms of information.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As of December 2012 there were 634 million websites, with 50 million added every year. This is one of the most obscure, only used by a handful of hobbyists.  A decision to keep this blog-sourced article sets a precedent for keeping any article on any website regardless of whether any independent sources have discussed it. The only reason we are considering it is because it is "one of ours". Not a good reason.  Aymatth2 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "I took the 51 citations, cut out all the wiki sources, blogs and articles that do not mention the Volapük Wikipedia or just note its existence. That leaves four sources." And significant coverage in four reliable sources is enough to tip it over the edge of WP:GNG and change to a "weak keep" vote ... just. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The coverage is of one event, the mass-generation of stubs, and does not discuss the website. The sources do not even give significant coverage of the event - they just mention it casually. Thus: "... languages such as Volapuk may have fewer than 30 speakers, but more than 100,000 articles, most of which are stubs created and edited automatically." This essay relies entirely on internal or self-published sources for all other information about the website. Is the event notable? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you could blow up the whole article and start all over from the best sources and see what you've got left. A small stub, but still enough. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that. Volapük already includes a description of the stub-generation event (unfortunately citing Wikimedia as a source). The event could perhaps also be mentioned in History of Wikipedia.  But giving it an article all of its own seems a bit daft - it really is obscure. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see plenty of good sources already in the article - a reliable book about Wikipedia, a government website, amongst others. Per DGG, if we don't cover Wikimedia topics, who will? Bearian (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The book says "... Wikipedias exist in constructed languages (Esperanto [eo] and Volapük [vo]) ...". The "Open Government" source says the same: "... in Kunstsprachen (Esperanto, Volapük) ..." Neither discuss the website. If no independent sources cover a particular Wikimedia topic, it is not notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is sufficent stuff here to sway me to keep - the sourcing might be minor and the language obscure, but I believe if nothing else this falls under WP:IAR - readers will expect an article on other Wikipedias. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is such an article: List of Wikipedias. If readers were interested in detailed coverage of this subject, independent sources would discuss it. That is how we determine notability with any other article. If Wikipedians are interested, which is clearly true from this discussion, but the general public is not, which is obvious from the lack of independent sources, it can be covered in the WP: namespace. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Stray thought - Has anyone checked to make sure this website is for real, not just an elaborate hoax? It exists for sure, at http://vo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cifapad, but does the content mean anything? How exactly does this stub generator work? Just a stray thought. I am sure there is no problem... Aymatth2 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a hoax. :) (unlike the Siberian Wikipedia). --Iketsi (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that question must have come up before. But it is surprising that the German Wikipedia has no article, when most of the Volapük enthusiasts seem to be German. What were the reasons why they moved it out of mainspace? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the Volapük enthusiasts used to be German, over a century ago, but that is not true anymore. The modern Volapük community is spread out around Europe (mainly in the United Kingdom) and the Americas, with the Vükiped's most prolific contributors being Brazilian. I did not find any discussion on the German Wikipedia about their decision to move it out of the mainspace, but they also did it with other Wikis that had limited sources. See de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie. --Iketsi (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see some rather scathing comments about the Vükiped Wikipedia quality, e.g. de:Diskussion:Volapük, but nothing about the reason for moving the article that describes it. Still, the sourcing on de:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie/Volapük-Wikipedia is indeed hopeless. The intro to the page de:Wikipedia:Enzyklopädie makes a great deal of sense. The namespace is designed for articles about Wikipedia that are useful internally to people involved in the project but do not meet the criteria for articles for the general public. The English Wikipedia should have a similar namespace, where we could spread ourselves on topics of purely internal interest, like this one. Perhaps the next step is to set one up, then to move this and similar articles over to it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: An attempt to summarize the discussion so far follows.
 * The website described can be read by less than 20 people. It is mostly maintained by one individual, Sergio Meira. Almost all the 120,000+ articles are very short, with no cited sources. There is no evidence that the website is a hoax, but individual postings may be suspect.
 * The article relies almost entirely on Wikipedia or sister project editor and blog comments. There is minimal discussion of the topic by external sources. What there is talks only about one incident of automated stub creation. Based on quality of sources and lack of independent coverage, the article does not qualify for retention.
 * Most editors feel the article should be kept anyway regardless of technicalities since it appears to give good coverage of an interesting and important subject and readers will expect Wikipedia to cover the subject.
 * Is that a fair summary? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: Several users contribute regularly and Smeira is not one of them (since 2009). He did write most of the articles, though. --Iketsi (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources, no notability. Just one minor event (the bot-created articles) was mentioned in a few reliable sources. If this were about any other website but a wiki, editors here would tumble over each other screaming "spam", "no sources", "not notable". --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (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.