Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volapuk encoding

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volapuk encoding

Volapuk encoding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been marked as lacking reliable sources since December 2005. Suggest deletion per our policy on verifiability unless this can be remedied within the week. RFerreira 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:A Alf^Photoman 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep. This assault of militant and lazy ignorance, probably coupled with lack of respect to cultures other than American, is simply outrageous. Don't you have enough trolls and vandals to fight? `'mikka 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing outrageous about trying to uphold our verifiability standards, and citing an e-mail message isn't really providing a reliable source. Please adjust your tone. RFerreira 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it is a reliable source. It is not a private email or blog entry. It is an official document of a e-mail provider about its own real, existing and verifiable service it took money for. I am not asking to adjust yoiur deletionist attitude, since it is obviously useless: your effort here is not to add information, but to find excuses to delete it, and in my understanding this borders with vandalism. `'mikka 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Temporary keep for now there is a Russian source which I cannot read. We should ask someone who can read the source to tell us whether it is reliable or not. Wooyi 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I verified with an Russian-literate editor, NYC JD, that the citation given is just a service announcement for botik.ru. It has nothing to do with the topic of the article. No reliable sources, nothing verifiable here. --Mus Musculus 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yes it has to do with the topic. Ant it is reliable source: it is from Russian e-mail provider not some blog. This "just service announcement" contains certain information that validates several statements from the article where it is quoted. This aggression of ignorance is appalling. `'mikka 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. It's certainly real and IMO "verifiable", though it's currently not "verified" from reliable sources and is more than a little bit original research. I think Mikkalai is taking this one a little too close to heart. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am taking this close to the heart, because it is not the first time Russia-relaed articles are placed for deletion. A number of them were started in early wikipedia days of 2003-2004, when there was no such zeal of referring every line of text, especiall if the subject was valid and non-controversial. And running amok today deleting everything that does not fit todays's standard on a short notice is not fair. Some wikipedians became too obsessed with the role of a broom forgetting about due diligence of checking facts. The article in question is easily convertible into a verifiable stub: the topic is clearly not a hoax and its existence is verifiable. It is not surprizing that the term left little trace in 'net: its "active life" was about 15 years, and Soviet Union was not exactly internet giant. `'mikka 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In point of fact, it is the responsibility of the authors and editors involved in the creation of an article to properly source it, and complaining that we can't delete an article just because there's no proof of its assertions is flat out wrong: that's what AfD is for in the first place. If you're so certain the article is valid, I'm sure you would have no problem finding verifiable sources for our review. RGTraynor 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "per nom" my ass. Did you happen to notice that I started the addition of references with proofs of assertions already? Or you only read nominations and article titles only? And someone wants me to tone down. `'mikka 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Tend to your own knitting, sir. We are well within our rights to decide for ourselves whether the single reference this article contains is credible and represents suitable verification. Until it is in a language we can read -- this being the English-language Wikipedia, last time I checked -- I don't find it to be, and given the extreme and unwarranted hostility of your tone, you'll perhaps forgive us if we ask for translators who are a bit less heavily biased. RGTraynor 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • <shrug> . It is not my fault that Russian wikipedians don't give a slightest damn about the history of their own internet. Probably a national peculiarity, similar to the American one, who don't know the origin of the word O.K.. Anyway, I added several more references, including one published book. And these "a bit less heavily biased" translators, as well as quite heavily biased deletionists may as well learn to use google to ckeck basic facts. Once again, we are not talking about a hoax or vandalism. We are talking about inherent laziness, when it is much easier to delete a quite interesting fact from internet history than to help colleagues out. `'mikka 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I left a message at the Russian wikipedians' notice board. And this is my last involvement in this page. If they will not respond, I cannot care less. `'mikka 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems to be properly sourced to me. The source is in Russian, but not all sources are in English. Wikiolap 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Duk 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the multiple sources added since the AFD began. I agree with RGTraynore about the bias of interpreters, but the fact that NYC JD has suggested the topic is real and verifiable motivates me to suggest keeping. In the end, I was swayed by the fact that a significant portion of the argument to "delete" the article even now that it's been referenced stems from the notion that non-English sources somehow contribute less toward verification. Knowledge of a foreign language is equivalent to possessing technical expertise in a subject. I'm sure I lack the knowledge to understand the content of some of the sources noted at quantum physics, but I will certainly not try to discredit these sources based on that. I maintain that this was a valid AFD nomination, but believe its concerns have been sufficiently addressed to warrant keeping the article for further/future improvement. -- Black Falcon 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Black Falcon -- xompanthy 21:59, 16 March 2007 (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.