Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigrannies


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Other than the nominator, there was a single delete vote, a single redirect vote and 3 keeps. PhantomSteve/ talk ¦ contribs \ 21:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikigrannies

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nominated here because PROD was contested.

Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion apply to articles about Wikipedia and Wikipedians as much as any other. As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of. The PROD was removed entirely legitimately but only (I assert) because a PROD can be removed for any reason – the explanation given included It's a very notable group that plays great role in promoting Wikimedia Movement and Wikimedia Values wolrdwide. More over, this effort counters the m:Gender Gap which is one of the biggest tasks for the movement, which clearly points to a COI and a non-neutral point of view – those are not of themselves valid reasons for retaining the article.

Notability is neither inherent or inherited. For the group to be notable, significant, independent and reliable coverage of the group itself is required. What I see is riding on the coattails of Wikipedia’s notability. The article should therefore be deleted. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm supposed to be neutral but this seems like a silly subject to bring to AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see references from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Komsomolskaya Pravda, among others. I think the references already present in the article are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Radio Free Europe article appears to be about someone who has created an automated Bashkir language poetry generator and which briefly says this group was asked to help. The Pravda article appears to be describing an initiative by the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs (Russia) to preserve Russian languages and I think it is recognising the Bashkir Wikipedia and this group as part of that. I agree these are both reliable sources independent of the subject, which is part of the WP:GNG requirement. Neither of these articles is about this group and I certainly do not see evidence that the first is anything like the also-required significant coverage. I had also discounted the second but maybe a Russian expert could help assess it better. Even so, WP:GNG says that multiple sources are generally expected and I am not yet persuaded that the group itself is notable. And given the inherent WP:COI, notability has to be beyond doubt, IMO. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is an urge to attack grannies? Wikimedia Movement values urges us to be generous and to develop Wikimedia Movement. Wikipedia has no firm rules and Wikipedia is not in favour of gaming the system. You are trying to delete grannies no matter what (despite ~20 sources present in the innocent article). You are trying to fetch all possible rules just to delete, delete, delete -- this totally contradicts with WP:SPIRIT of Wikipedia. I have a feeling that you treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEFIELD which is strictly prohibited. ssr (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet,  and Russia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Yes it's very bad that we have users that produce such nominations instead of normal creation works for Wikimedia Movement. -- ssr (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect - if possible to the page on wikimedia 1 JMWt (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not an encyclopedia article while this is an encyclopedia article as it should be. -- ssr (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. I'm glad groups like this exist, but the coverage is not significant enough to meet the bar of the general notability guideline.~TPW 20:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But there IS coverage, and more than once and more than twice. This is fairly enough for creation work and there is no need to fight that. There are legitimate articles with only 1 source, and here we have ~20 sources. As a Wikipedian, you should support and praise that. This is for the goals of Wikimedia Movement. By putting efforts into deletion of it you and others go against global Wikimedia Movement. Why do so? Why go against global Wikimedia Movement and struggle to remove? To save server space? To punish me? To punish grannies? -- ssr (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I recommend you remain civil. An article existing because "it's a part of a global movement" isn't a reason itself to keep the article, nor is the 20 sources (WP:NOTEBOMB, WP:MASK, quality over quantity). I'm remaining neutral, but As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of... seems 'silly', almost like Articles for deletion/Human. Nobody is being "punished" here, we're attempting to achieve consensus. NotAGenious (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As user Liz said above — "this seems like a silly subject to bring to AFD". Bringing this to AfD was really silly, so we have to talk silly talks here. I would recommend cacelling the nomination so we are not forced to silly talks. 20 sources is a very sure reason to keep the article. "Quality over quantity", you say? That's excellent, let's work on quality! But we have to keep the article before that. -- ssr (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "A conflict of interest to be aware of"—no doubt. Well, we are aware. But this is not a reason for deletion! Some fixes? More text? Point me out all the issues with the text so we can work on it. But the article should be kept in any way. Promoting Wikimedia Movement is a goal for ALL OF US. This kind of activity is (and should be) encouraged by the commnuity. Conflicts should be fixed, but movement should be promoted in any possible ways: so that keeping the article is a way to promote movement (article is notable and sourced enough), and deleting the article is a way to harm the movement. Why should we harm the movement? I won't do that. -- ssr (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:Liz evaluated the case absolutely correctly: this was really "a silly subject to bring to AFD". User:Dorsetonian did really a silly thing. Please keep the article and ask him to do no more things like this. All this is counter-Wikipedian activity. This should be stopped immediately. Please do it. --ssr (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While I might support having articles like this on the project, that highlight the work of groups of editors, I think think this was a good faith AFD nomination and Dorsetonian did nothing wrong. I can oppose the deletion of an article while still acknowledging that AFD is an important part of reviewing articles to determine what we think should be main space material. As I have my own opinion on this one, I'll let another closer handle assessing this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not fame or noteworthiness. Notability is a construct. This group gained media attention because of their association with Wikipedia. They inherited noteworthiness from Wikipedia. This led to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This coverage means that the subject is notable. It doesn't matter why it's notable, once it's notable it's notable. See Category:Wives and girlfriends of association football players to see how it works.—Alalch E. 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. One more solid piece of IRS SIGCOV would be sufficient for me. Here's my source analysis: 1. encyclopedia.ru: passing mention in what appears to be a group blog. 2. resbash.ru: some background on the topic, but most of it is an interview with a member about Bashkir wiki-volunteering in general. 3. zdf.de: video that throws an error code. 4. bashgazet.ru: about editing Bashkortostan Wikipedia in general, no apparent mention of "Wiki-Grannies". 5. udmdunne.ru: announcement for a Ural wiki-seminar, no mention of topic. 6. chaskor.ru: passing mention. 7. kp.ru: mentioned in half a sentence. 8. ru.wikinews.org: not independent. 9. gosvopros.ru: substantial coverage. 10. gosvopros.ru: coverage by the same outlet and author as #9. 11. prufy.ru: mostly interview material. 12. bashinform.ru: passing mention. 13. ru.wikipedia.org: not independent. 14. kazanfirst.ru: Q&A interview, not independent/secondary. 15. bashinform.ru: mention in a quote, not secondary or SIGCOV. 16. idelreal.org: mention in a quote, not secondary or SIGCOV
 * JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the analysis. ZDF video appears to be broken, but it existed. Maybe there is a way to get that video. There are probably also Russian and Bashkir videos from VGTRK, but I so far failed to search them (they are from on-air TV). As for "8. ru.wikinews.org: not independent" — yes, not independent, but reliable and original. It was written directly in English (and Tatar/Baskkir) by Farhad Fatkullin, who is not independent, but is very familiar with the subject and is realiable as a source because he can be trusted in terms of factual accuracy and other types of relevance. -- ssr (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2023 (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.