Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seslisozluk

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 no consensus. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seslisozluk

Seslisozluk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable Web site, a multilingual dictionary. Possibly appropriate as an external link to the Turkish language page, but no obvious reason it deserves a WP article. Macrakis (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question. I know that "other stuff exists" is not an argument per se against deletion, so consider this a question rather than an argument. Do we have a criterion for determining the notability of online dictionaries, such as the Academic Dictionary of Lithuanian, the Bible Dictionary (LDS Church), Deu sozluk, Dictionary.co.uk, the Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines, Eijiro, FOLDOC, Freedict, the KMLE Medical Dictionary, LEO, Lingvo Online, the Logos Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Net Sözlük, the Online Etymology Dictionary, Private Sözlük, Pseudodictionary, Reference.com, the Dictionary of the Scots Language, the Scottish National Dictionary, Susning.nu, the Urban Dictionary, WWWJDIC, Wiktionary, William Whitaker's Words, the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal (WAT), WordReference.com, and Xobdo.org?  --Lambiam 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your list includes several different cases: reputable, established publications (Merriam-Webster, Academic Dictionary of Lithuanian, etc.) which have a Web presence; widely-used, well-known Web projects or Web sites whether serious/reputable or not(Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, Wiktionary, Urban Dictionary, etc.); and various sites working on more-or-less serious dictionaries of various languages, often using collaborative techniques such as wikis. The first two categories certainly belong on WP; what is less clear is articles in the third category. Recall that WP is not a Web directory. If there is little encyclopedic to say about a site, it should not have an article, even if it is perfectly appropriate as an external link in other articles. Also, if the site is not widely known or heavily used, it should not have an article. This is all discussed pretty extensively at WP:Notability. --Macrakis (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 21:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – being the #1 site in Turkey may perhaps not be notable, but having rank 6 among online dictionaries worldwide is a good claim to fame.  --Lambiam 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Rankings can be a good indicator but not a reason to include. No WP:RS for content to establish notability. BTW, it is 2nd on pagerank for Turkish Dictionaries on my look now from the link in the article. Dimitrii (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per popularity. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:05, 25 March 2008 (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.