Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While this is numerically even, the arguments to delete are far stronger; those wishing to keep have failed to demonstrated that WP:SIGCOV of this topic exists. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NWEB. The only independent source provided is an announcement of the site reaching 25,000 articles. Notability maintenance tag was repeatedly removed by article creator. No sources provided to show how this website is important or influential. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article has already 3 different references to 3 different mass media. The reasoning that the sources provided are of "dubious notability" is a subjective and particular opinion that does not correspond to reality. They are independent digital newspapers from the Valencian Community (Spain), current and active, written by journalists.
    It's not completely true that I have remove the "notability maintenance tag repeatedly removed by article creator". I only have remove the tag two times, and the last time I added before removing the tag, another mass media reference (right now 3 references to diferent mass media), as the Wikipedia rules indicate.
    I can't find the reason to delete this article and other articles of other encyclopedias wikis has no problems in Wikipedia in English, as all of these: Enciklopedio Kalblanda, Sarvavijnanakosam, Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, Vienna History Wiki, Banglapedia, Metapedia (neo-nazi encyclopedia!) and so on.
    I'm a collaborator of Wikipedia since year 2008 and I have created many articles in Wikipedia in English, Spanish, and other languages and this is a strange behavior.--Valencian (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:other stuff for why that is not a great argument. Also your WP:BADGEring is not going to help your case. I am quite sympathetic to wanting to preserve this Article on a fascinating media wiki/minority language preservation protection. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret. I checked JSTOR, Google Scholar and other places for any possible arguments of WP:PUBLISHER or other references to this Encyclopedia in a minority language, but I couldn't find anything beyond the 3 news links mentioned above. Only one of which has a named author. All three are on short side, and reference the same bench-mark of 25,000 article, so this does not pass WP:BASIC. To ensure this info is not lost on enwp I would recommend to move some of the content to Valencian language#Media in Valencian should this be deleted. One more source from a reputable scholar would sway me. Hopefully this changes in the near future, but for now I don't see any other possibilities. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious cross wiki-spam (the creator of the articles is administrator of the same websites and one of few regular contributor to it), no clues to prove actual relevance, the three mentions are from regional confidential online newpapers (Valencia News, is probably directly related). CaféBuzz (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator reasons. Also there's a second user (also active in that project) that helped in the crosswiki promotion (in artificial and some African languages). Is blatant promotion. Taichi (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a useful information tool in Valencian and about the Valencian Community with 26,000 articles and it is obvious that it is relevant about the Valencian Community (Spain). I certainly do not find any serious reason to be deleted. The sources are regular newspapers from the Valencian Community which are already cited in other articles. They are common users between wikipedia and this encyclopedia? It has always been between encyclopedias and wikis, it is nothing strange, on the contrary, it is something common. --Okkto (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okkto Do you have a reason for your opinion? 331dot (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User expanded their answer in response to my query. Thank you 331dot (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A wiki with more than 26,000 articles and the article has references. As abovementioned, the fact that the authors are users of both wikipedia and this encyclopedia doesn't mean anything, given the fact that this is quite common among Wikipedians. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caro de Segeda But what matters is if independent reliable sources give this encyclopedia significant coverage. Only documenting its number of articles is not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is correct, well written and its reference sources are independent and journalist-run media and even used as a reference in other articles of the Spanish Wikipedia. We have in this Wikipedia other articles much more incomplete and with fewer references for encyclopedias and wikipedias in other languages such as Enciklopedio Kalblanda , Sarvavijnanakosam , Universal Free Encyclopedia in Spanish , Vienna History Wiki , Banglapedia , Metapedia among others.
    As for the number of collaborators you simply have to see the evolution of this encyclopedia that has already exceeded 26,500 articles and 250,000 editions, to understand that it is not the product of a handful of contributors as it is intended to imply, but the teamwork well done by all its collaborators.
    I see no reason whatsoever for it to be deleted. LuisMM54321 (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LuisMM54321 It being correct is not relevant, the issue is that it does not meet the definition of notability here on the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia is separate. No sources are provided that discuss this website in detail, telling why it is significant or influential. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LuisMM54321 : The two accounts "Jose2" and "Valencian" have created the majority of the articles on this website. CaféBuzz (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have also created many articles and added information in others in the Valencian Encyclopedia, but anyway I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case, what does matter is the veracity and quality of them and their impact and in the Encyclopedia in Valencian people come and go as in all and maybe one is months without collaborating And then it re-engages, as has been my case a couple of times. And well you think that it is not relevant and others think that if it is, even much more than other articles that are here about other wikipedias and encyclopedias and that have not been proposed for deletion, so I think that this deletion proposal is totally unnecessary and unfair and that it is coindicated not by the quality and importance of the
Encyclopedia but for the language it deals with, I sincerely believe that this is the only reason why it has been proposed to delete the article of the Valencian Encyclopedia and not that of other wikipedias of lesser relevance and with less number of articles. LuisMM54321 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First you pretend "it is not the product of a handful of contributors as it is intended to imply", but when it is proved that it actually is "I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case"...
The self promotion by a handful of users you're obviously part of is blatant.
Also, I cannot accept your insinuation that what motivates this debate is the language it deals with, I have wrotten a good bunch of articles about Valencian language and culture on French Wikipedia, it's actually a language I've learnt and I do enjoy it (and to say the truth, I am currently listening to the Valencian Community radio station). The motivation for this debate is the irrelevance of the main subject. I've implied myself in several other cases of crosswiki spam, some affecting small wikipedias like here, which is a really shameful practice, because they are very weak to face this kind of spamming. For the rest, see Wikipedia:Other stuff. CaféBuzz (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user CaféBuzz who initiated the last week the article deletion in French Wikipedia is just a second profile of the user Xic667 as him recognize on his user’s page in French Wikipedia. The user Xic667 has been a regular contributor to the Catalan wikipedia since 2013 and even "Amical Wikimedia" offered to this user to be part of this association that promotes the Catalan wikipedia. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian considers Valencian as an independent language from Catalan, not a dialect from Catalan and this and not another seems to be his basic problem with this article. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian use the Norms of El Puig, a linguistic rules developed exclusively for the Valencian language in year 1979 by the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture (RACV). This encyclopedia doesn't use the Catalan language rules. This user has a clear conflict of interest by affinity. I want to think that everyone who has voted in the deletion of this article knows the Valencian linguistic conflict, that as you can see has an article in the English wikipedia since year 2010. Valencian (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous accusations. I have used years ago an account, I have not used it for years. I had less than 400 contributions in 6 years on Catalan Wikipedia, and this offer about "Wikimedia Amical" was some automatical message left on my talk page I have no idea about.
Moreover, please note that the debate about deletion has been initiated before on English and Spanish Wikimedia. You removed maintenance tags on all Wikipedias without a good reason, don' try to drown the fish. CaféBuzz (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already told you before on the deletion page in French, you and I discussed extensively on the topic of Valencian language in the French wikipedia years ago. And what I have said is that it does not seem to me entirely ethical that a person who has previously discussed with the creator of the article on the same subject, is the same one who proposes the deletion of the article. The logical thing is to propose a more neutral person.
I removed the template because I previously added one more reference to another mass media and then withdrew the template. With this reference there were already 3 references to 3 different newspapers, enough for an article of such short length. It’s something I’ve done before and many users do when adding references and other times I have not had any problems. Valencian (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have no neutrality lesson to give. So YOU are allowed to remove the template on this article about your website but other people are not allowed to do whatever just they because discussed with you about you spreading unrecocognized theories all along Wikipedia while there is a scientific consens against it? It has nothing to do about the current debate. Which ethicals model are you allowed to defend, while crossspamming this article about your confidential encyclopedia on small wikis? Please stop giving the argument of the number of articles, most of them have been written by the same person. Come on, be serious just one minute. CaféBuzz (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's refrain from the personal attacks, please. We're discussing the suitability of this article for wikipedia, nothing more. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete @LuisMM54321 You said "I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case, what does matter is the veracity and quality of them and their impact..." That is not what matters for an article in Wikipedia. As already mentioned, what matters is what independent, reliable, published sources have written about the subject.
David10244 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why have you created articles about your/this website in astwiki, dewiki, enwiki, eowiki, eswiki, frwiki, iawiki, iewiki, itwiki, novwiki, nywiki, ptwiki, tumwiki, but not in the catalan-valencian-language edition of Wikipedia? I find this suspicious. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very simple, impossible that this article was not deleted or boycotted in the Catalan wikipedia from the beginning. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian states that Valencian is a language, not a dialect from Catalan. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian use the Norms of El Puig, a linguistic rules developed exclusively for the Valencian language in year 1979 by the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture (RACV). This encyclopedia doesn't use the Catalan language rules. In the Catalan wikipedia the contents that claim that Valencian is a language and not a dialect from Catalan, have it very complicated. Explained in one word that sounds very bad but still exists in the 21st century, censorship. I want to think that everyone who has voted in the deletion of this article knows the Valencian linguistic conflict, that as you can see has an article in the English wikipedia since year 2010. Thanks for your kind attention. Valencian (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your clear answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably keep - based only on the notability, it appears that there are sufficient RS to meet the GNG. There are various other issues about POV etc but I'm not sure how to unravel them to !vote. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt Please list some of these RS you say establish this meets GNG- they aren't currently provided in the article AFAIK. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I include here a new article dated January 15, 2023 on "L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian", in this case the newspaper Las Provincias, one of the two most sold newspapers in the Valencian Community, published in Valencia. Article about "L'Enciclopèdia en valencià". Author: Òscar Rueda. Newspaper "Las Provincias", edition January 15th 2023, Valencia (Spain).
Online link: L'Enciclopèdia del valencià
With this new article right now there are 4 different mass media from the Valencian Community with reference to "L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian" in the last months. Thanks for your attention. Valencian (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't examine the source due to a paywall(which is okay, I'm just saying I can't read it), but its validity would depends on its contents. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the article is possible to read it here: Article about "L'Enciclopèdia en valencià". Author: Òscar Rueda. Newspaper "Las Provincias", edition January 15th 2023, Valencia (Spain). Thanks Valencian (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is a guideline, and the difference with a policy is that there is always space to manoeuver. This article is not about somebody's cat, webshop or stamp collection, it is one of those many examples of a big fish in a small pond, in other words, it belongs to a grey area where any decision is subjective. Even if this encyclopedia is of some regional significance only, the worst one can say is that notability is doubtful, and where there's doubt, there is room for the benefit of it. Since neither verifiability nor article quality seems to be the issue here, I'm inclined to keep it. Alternatively, it should at the very least be merged into Valencian language. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 09:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting case in the regional linguistics and knowledge. Sepharad1 (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sepharad1 This is specifically named as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The main issue here is if this has sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to be considered notable. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's only spam across multiple versions of Wikipedia. --Arroser (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By direct reference to an earlier comment from days ago, I would like to clarify that the opinion that Valencian is an independent language and not a dialect of Catalan, is the majority in the Valencian Community and among Valencians and has always been so. These are not strange or extravagant theories of mine or of any user. To this end, I quote from the article Valencian in the English wikipedia, section "Politico-linguistic controversy" the following sentences:
Despite the position of the official organizations, an opinion poll carried out between 2001 and 2004[19] showed that the majority (65%) of the Valencian people (both Valencian and Spanish speakers) consider Valencian different from Catalan. According to an official poll in 2014,[18] 52% of Valencians considered Valencian to be a language different from Catalan. Thanks --Valencian (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with this debate. Many people believe they are two different languages but the huge majority of people writing in Valencian doesn't use the orthographic norms you are using on your website, which are not the ones taught in schools or in the universities, and are marginal in the edition too. According to the promotors of these norms themselves, there are about 1000 people formed to those orthographic norms, that represents less than 0.1 % of people able to write in Valencian CaféBuzz (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically a wikipedia clone in another language, as noble as that may be, there are no sources found that discuss it that meet our notability criteria. This appears to be PROMO for the encyclopedia, which is not allowed. There is no coverage in French either, I've looked there. As excited as the editors above are, we can't keep an article with a lack of reliable, neutral, third-party sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The independent sources are local and not notable and uses the site itself various times as reference. The main reason for my !vote is that it is clearly promotional. It has been created with a COI by Valencian, an editor since 2009 and admin of the site he wrote the article about. There has been a clear crosswiki effort by Valencian and another user of the site. they have created versions in multiple exotic minority languages. In the deletion discussion at eswiki that I closed as delete, the user Linuxmania pointed out that some articles can not be edited by users so the wiki label is misleading (see here in Spanish). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L%27Enciclopèdia_in_Valencian&oldid=1136928670"