Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waray-Waray Wikipedia


 * 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. We seem to have a rough consensus that this article is not notable, but also a rough enough consensus to ignore the rules in this case. As much as I'm not convinced that's the right call to make, it is the consensus. Courcelles 18:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Waray-Waray Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

doubtful notability, too short article Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - this language, Waray-Waray, is spoken by 3.4 million people in the Philippines, and the Wiki has over 100,000 articles, thus it is likely to be notable. Before nomination, it is likely that many sources could be found. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the relevant Philippines wiki project was never notified. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) So I did it. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notification. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - As a sister WMF project, I'd expect it to be exempt from WP:N (though not from WP:V). Not to mention that this is one of the larger other language Wikipedias on a major language with far more speakers than say Basque, Irish, Slovenian, or Welsh.


 * I'm completely dumbfounded really. Seems to be an extreme interpretation of WP:WEB and possibly an exercise in seeing how far wikilawyering will go. As far as I'm concerned, activities like this are disruptive despite staying 'within the rules'. It's gaming the system and annoying, so forgive me if I don't sound too AGF-ey in the following:


 * Nominator may not be aware that almost all of our articles on sister projects rely on primary sources. Our article on Wikimedia Commons for example, only has two truly independent sources and both are trivial, should we delete that too?


 * He has also nominated the article in the Russian Wikipedia citing similar reasons, and nominated another sister project in addition to this, the Khowar Wikipedia article.


 * I'm concerned that nominator may have been encouraged by an AfD barnstar. At only 314 edits, only 124 on article space, and an incongruous amount of AfD's. I really don't think he should be nominating anything more at this point. The failure to notify the appropriate WikiProjects is a glaring example of why not, plus previous instances, see User talk:Postoronniy-13.


 * I'm more than tempted to AfD Russian Wikipedia as well just to see how he'll deal with it. It also fails WP:WEB.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please not count my edits - I'm observing their number and quality by myself, it's enough. :) Most of my "incongruous amount of AfD's" were proper, see their results. Also I advise you not to pass on personalities any more. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedian rules about notability should be followed, it's doubtful that this article can be exempt because of any reasons. Please not to blame me for "disruptive activities", there is nothing "disruptive" in my wish for following wiki rules. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also Ru-Wiki obviously passes notability rules. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there are no exceptions from the notability rules to articles about WMF projects. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously. I suppose it makes you warm and fuzzy all over that you know you can nominate every other language Wikipedia for deletion while your home Wikipedia is safe. No, I do not equate edit count with capability. However, having a large list of passed AfD's, when you have done little else doesn't particularly impress me. To the contrary, it worries me. Is this all you're planning to do then? AfD's are easy. How about writing articles first?


 * Anyway yeah, here we have our umbrella project, meta.wiki, trying to kickstart different language Wikipedias up from incubators, and you're here happily sabotaging it with some blather on rules. We're not separate sites. Different rules, different people, different languages, but we're all under WMF with the same goal of free knowledge. Rules are fine. But you might want to get a little bit of common sense with that. Or are you maybe just trolling? Here, I'll help you. The following articles fail WP:WEB miserably:


 * Hebrew Wikipedia
 * Wikimedia Commons
 * Vietnamese Wikipedia
 * Hindi Wikipedia
 * Korean Wikipedia
 * Persian Wikipedia
 * Finnish Wikipedia
 * Haitian Creole Wikipedia
 * Danish Wikipedia
 * Portuguese Wikipedia
 * Swedish Wikipedia
 * Slovak Wikipedia
 * Ukrainian Wikipedia
 * Kazakh Wikipedia


 * I'm sure there are more. :) Start deleting. No one will mind if you systematically start erasing articles about ourselves. After all, you said it yourself, there are no exceptions. You're probably one of those people who'd rather let someone drown than help them because the sign on the beach says "Strictly no swimming!". Cheers.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   10:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like your discussion style, I think it's not correct. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy for to have a look at such many articles :), nevertheless I suppose that considerable number of them are notable. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all WMF projects have the same goal of free knowledge, but for to have an article in main namespace of one project about other project - it's necessary that the article would satisfy project rules, particularly notability rules. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, I know you're definitely trolling by now. Don't give me that excuse. You were not lazy enough to take a glance at two sister WMF projects and decide they were not worth it were you? I'm doing all the work here!


 * Which of the 'considerable number' are 'notable'? Just one. Is it the Finnish Wikipedia with ~250,000 articles, 8 million native speakers, and no sources? Maybe it's the 15th largest Wikipedia, the Ukrainian Wikipedia, also with zero sources. It might also be our much loved Wikimedia Commons with only passing mentions in two independent sources with all the remaining sources primary sources. I'm sorry but all of them do fail by your precious rules.


 * Except that they don't. You do know that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, right? Please take a quick look at the very top of our page on WP:N. Specifically this:


 * "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."


 * Hint: WP:COMMONSENSE. Anyway I'm sure you enjoy AfD's very much. I look forward to you nominating all the articles I gave above. I'm sure many editors will appreciate your hard work for removing such apparent garbage from our precious Wikipedia.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For Ukrainian WP - see (WP altogether and Ukr. WP related publications collected on the page). --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please not blame me for "trolling" - groundless blame for violations of WP rules is a violation of WP rules. Please talk with me politely, not aggressively. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You think that we should ignore notability rule on the ground of "common sense" (as you understand it)? It's only your opinion, not a fact. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally. You get it. The thought that someone actually wastes time and energy AfDing a sister project is amazingly nonsensical to me (and frankly territorial, given the energy you've expounded in defending your home wikis). By deleting it, you are damaging not only the exposure of that particular project but of all Wikipedias in general. Notice this page: http://www.wikipedia.org/ ? That's us. That's not really a very hard concept to get, is it?


 * Instead of doing more constructive things like finding WP:COI unsourced and advertisment-filled junk articles that some company or another is always making on Wikipedia, or even writing articles, you are instead devoting your energy on deleting a part of Wikipedia. You're basically telling entire groups of your fellow editors that they're worthless. Why? Because they're probably not as well advanced into the digital age as your countries? Why wouldn't I be cranky at that? I will assume bad faith on editors who apparently have no compunctions at eroding the very foundation that made all this possible in the first place, all through myopic interpretations of guidelines.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC-ed. :|) OT: Obsidian Soul, methinks you should join Wikimedia Philippines. We need members from the Visayas. :P --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So let us record: as I think, you have no real arguments (based on WP rules) for the article to be kept. The article has no evidence of notability and should be deleted. Some of your sentences have no relation to notability discussion and/or are not polite. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Language barrier? You really can't see anything past rules can you? In which case, my earlier sentence about letting another guy drown for a No Swimming sign applies perfectly. And this is pointless. I'll expect you to start AfDing the others listed above. Else I'm calling Russocentric hypocrisy. Especially since you're only AfDing anything not Russian, and not even blinking an eye when editing completely unsourced Russian articles like FC MVD Rossii Moscow.


 * And yes, sorry. I don't really bother pretending to be sunshine and rainbows when I don't feel like it. AfD's are not exactly tea parties in the garden. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability is a policy, but it has historically been subject to a wide variety of interpretations, none of which can truly grasp the spirit of what notability on the English Wikipedia pertains to, as I will explain in my vote below. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's a Wikipedia site which is the only reason that I need. Joe Chill (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a tremendously bad reason. Neutralitytalk 13:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep--YOSHImitsu 11:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you any arguments? This is a discussion, not a voting. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is as same as other friends.--YOSHImitsu 13:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC-ed. :|) Neutral There is credence in keeping the article, which is that it has grown to 100,000 articles and is, by article count, the largest Philippine-language Wikipedia. However, this is counterbalanced by two things: first, most of the articles are one-line stubs, and second, the Waray-Waray Wikipedia has not yet gotten the exposure needed to satisfy the English Wikipedia's notability requirements.  We must consider though that notability is inherently subjective (something which for some reason is lost among some editors): as the lone Waray-Waray encyclopedia, people living in Eastern Visayas, where Waray-Waray is the dominant language, are probably going to be as aware of the existence of the Waray-Waray Wikipedia as they would be aware of the existence of TV Patrol Tacloban (which also had a similar AfD).  But is this enough?  That's something that I'd like to see answered in this AfD. (N.B.: I'm voting "Neutral" because part of what Wikimedia Philippines does is promoting the Philippine-language Wikimedia projects, and I'm concerned that conflict of interest may arise, so I hope everyone understands.  Thanks.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detailed comment. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No third-party, independent references in article, and it does not seem like very many sources (newspaper and magazine references, journal articles, etc.) treating the subject in depth exist to sustain a claim to notability. Neutralitytalk 00:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: A low profile subject but war-wiki is indisputably an integral part of Wikipedia.  Most probably, this would be the first place that wikipedians will look into, if they are interested to know about Waray-Waray wikipedia.  Deleting this article is too drastic, disruptive and counterproductive.  The nominator may wish to use other methods such as merger.  As an administrator of Waray-Waray wikipedia, I would still prefer that we leave this as is, uphold its legitimacy, and let it grow.  Don't kill it.  --JinJian (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you any arguments disproving arguments for deletion by me and Neutrality? If to merge - with what? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If some people are looking for info about this wiki, it would be well if they could find it - in more general article or in Wikipedia namespace where is no WP:N. Let's think just where we can place info about this wiki (if not in separate article in main namespace). --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Readers, especially the target readers of Wikipedias, don't look for information in the Wikipedia namespace.
 * Why didn't you write a general article on all 'non-notable' Wikimedia projects then and propose a merge instead of an AfD?
 * You're treating a fellow Wikimedia project as if it was some promotional for-profit evil company completely separate from the very same Wikipedias you are editing. WP:N's purpose was to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics especially for self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity. Now you're doing indiscriminate exclusion, acting on a rule because it says so, without actually asking yourself what it means or what its purpose was.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with the characterization that deleting the article will be too "drastic, disruptive and counterproductive". For a while the article on the Tagalog Wikipedia, which is certainly more notable than the Waray-Waray Wikipedia, was a redirect to the article List of Wikipedias.  It was resurrected shortly after Wikipedia Day because a non-Filipino editor thought that since it now had 50,000 articles, it deserved its own Wikipedia article.  If this article, which is about a Wikipedia double the size but with lesser media exposure (as far as I know), gets deleted, I don't believe that there will be major upheaval because of it. --Sky Harbor (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 12:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)]
 * Waray-Waray wikipedia article was also started by a non-Filipino editor. I can only speculate that his motivation was since it reached 100,000, it also probably deserved its own article.  For now, none of its editors/contributors are from Waray-waray wikipedia as far as I know. --JinJian (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article is one thing, but retaining it after passing through the intense scrutiny required to keep it is another matter altogether. I'm not a big fan of the notability guidelines myself (it's like passing a thread through the eye of a needle), but we have to abide by them so long as they are policy.  I believe though that AfDs like this one can bring about new perspectives as to how notability ought to be treated on the English Wikipedia. --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 02:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe to be merged with Waray-Waray language? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not recommend merging a wikimedia project with a language. Obsidian Soul already gave you a hint on what to do.
 * And please be objective to include all 'non-notable' Wikimedia projects of the same class. Do not forget to make redirects if you are successful. This does not necessarily mean that I will be voting favorably for that merger.  I still believe that Waray-Waray wikipedia is still 'worthy of notice' and prefer to treat it as a stub.  But at least I will consider such move as more constructive.--JinJian (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may request Sky Harbor to help you in identifying the notability of other wikimedia projects that may be included in your merger. He appears to be an expert on this matter.  WP:N would also help.  Should you decide to Afd Tagalog Wikipedia after discerning things, just like Waray-Waray Wikipedia article, I am also against deleting it because it is too drastic, disruptive and counterproductive as well.  I believe both deserved their own articles.--JinJian (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC) --JinJian (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And please be objective to include all 'non-notable' Wikimedia projects of the same class. - you are not about the list by Obsidian Soul above, I hope? It's likely that most of projects listed there are notable. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily as listed by Obsidian Soul. I have not read them all and I have no plan to assess them.--JinJian (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * About Tagalog WP - sorry, but notability question is also should be considered. And sorry another time, personally me don't want any more flame discussions. I want my work in En-Wiki to be quiet. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And you do that by choosing controversial deletions. Nice going. "It's likely that most of projects listed there are notable." <- and why do you say that? Because they're of European languages and you've likely heard of them? It was apparent from the start that the main motivation for you really is that that you've never heard of the language. The fact that you even offered to merge it with the Waray-Waray language article is hilarious. As if both are so inconsequential that they can be squeezed into one article only distantly related to each other. You're treating this completely like a WP:COI article, as if Waray people are writing the entire thing intent on promoting... what? Their people? Which part of it's a Wikipedia did you not get? A not-for-profit website that we link to in our interlanguages because it is part of the entire foundation we are volunteering in.


 * If you're wondering why I'm so worked up about this - no, I'm not Waray, don't know any Waray people, and I don't even speak the language. But the fact that things like this happen all the time is the reason why WP:Systemic bias is still a very big problem in Wikipedia. It's always some clueless and perhaps more than a little xenophobic European who sees an article on an unfamiliar subject, then decides arbitrarily that the subject must not be notable since he hasn't heard of it and it didn't come from any western country. This is especially since you've self-identified as nationalistic, making your intentions suspect. Yes the language Waray-waray is obscure to you, but not to us. And now you're actually setting your sights on the Tagalog Wikipedia while still refusing to run through the list I gave at the beginning. Nice.


 * You sir, are a shining example of what happens when rules replace common sense. This is my final rant here, and I don't really expect you to change your mind anytime soon. I have better things to. Like write articles. So good day.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, you can't discuss without personal attacks, it's sadly. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then ignore my personal attacks and focus on what I am saying. I admittedly have a very short temper, sorry.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   12:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's enough, the both of you. Keep the debate civil without having to resort to personal attacks, sarcastic or otherwise.  Tempers can be controlled no matter how short they are. :| --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 01:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I stopped. :| Now that I've gotten back to doing my usual stuff. I realize I totally overreacted... as usual. Apologies to Postoronniy. Although I still will not support deletion in this case, I will keep myself off this discussion.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   02:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The various language Wikipedias are a reasonable exception to the usual guidelines. WP:N explicitly says it does not cover all cases. The people to decide on making exceptions is ourselves, and this is the place.  DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I corrected the dead link about Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Waray-Waray in the article. -- Brateevsky ( talk to me ) 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Also, that an article is short is not a valid deletion reason. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (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.