- italki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I am new to the process of Wikipedia editing and deletion reviews. I'll do my best to make the case correctly.
Recommending the reinclusion of italki (the language education service) from deletion, using this page as content User:Kshanghai/Italki.
Previous versions of the page were not well referenced WP:RS, and did not meet the standards for objectivity WP:NPOV, notability WP:GNG, and for being too close to corporate promotion WP:CORPSPAM.
New page content tries to address this by: 1. Rewriting the previous text to be simpler, and more neutral. 2. Adding references for sources that are reputable, including major news organizations and industry blogs that cover technology or language education WP:RS. 3. Removed text that could be viewed as promotional.
Using criteria of neutrality and notability, removing italki from Wikipedia seems inconsistent. It is arguably the largest company in this segment, and significantly smaller companies are included in Wikipedia. For disclosure of conflicts of interest, I am employed by the company. WP:AVOIDCOI
Reference to the previous deletion discussion:
Kshanghai (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've fixed up the header to include this as the XfD link -- RoySmith (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse
for now. Thank you for writing the draft; having a concrete draft to look at makes these discussions simpler. However, I'm afraid I don't think the sources meet our requirements. I scanned the list of references. Many of these appear to be routine announcements of funding events. I found three titles that looked promising and read them in more detail. Online alternatives to language classrooms open up to students (The Guardian) and Secrets of Leaning a Language - Quickly (BBC) are both articles about the general topic of learning languages, and mention Italki only in passing. The 10 best language products (Independent) is a directory-style listing. Please read WP:CORPDEPTH; none of these meet the requirements set out there. It would be useful if you could list here the two or three and no more sources which you believe best meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
-
- The e27 piece (the one you call Tech News) is a recycled press release. It shows up on Deal Street Asia a day earlier. Articles based on press releases don't count for anything. The two Guardian pieces are both articles about learning languages in general and only mention italki in passing. One of those, in fact, is exactly the source I already commented on above, as being unusable. -- RoySmith (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse new article, overturn AFD to noquorum softdelete, trout User:CAPTAIN_RAJU for relist #3, and trout User:TheSandDoctor for relist #4. Note that CORPSPAM is an op-ed, i.e., a blog by a Wikipedia editor. None of the participants has shown results from WP:BEFORE. Without even talking about Google web, Google news, and Google books; a look at the first page of Google scholar shows a persistent long-running interest by the world of academia. For example, the first link from 2010 states, "...[the] five most popular language learning social networks, Livemocha, italki, ChinesePod, MayHappyPlanet, and xLingo." The next four links feature "italki" in the title of the source. As a multi-language topic, sources from around the world include languages that don't use the Roman alphabet, which was not even mentioned in the AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse agreed that the relisting was pointless, and it should have been soft deleted much earlier, but it did have a full quorum (which these days we count as two !votes). I don't see a reason to overturn to soft delete since three editors endorsed deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, the sources provided by Cunard below do not change my opinion. I wouldn't oppose a relist, but I do oppose DRV being turned into AfD 2.0. The deletion was good on its merits, and the sourcing provided is not enough information to lead us to believe that it clearly would have survived AfD. If people think that the sourcing below is enough to support an article, a relist is better. DRV's job is to evaluate process, while AfDs job is to evaluate sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 is for "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" Are you requiring OPs to submit petitions here under WP:DRVPURPOSE #1, "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;"? Unscintillating (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I also believe that when three AfD regulars agree to delete an article for reasons other than notability they also likely did a WP:BEFORE search. To turn DRV into an assessment of sourcing that they likely already reviewed is not part of the purpose of DRV, and AfD does it better than we do here. DRVPURPOSE3 involves things like new information coming to light that a subject actually met an SNG criteria, or it was deleted on grounds that non-English sourcing was unlikely, and someone then finds sourcing. There is nothing new here that if presented would have been likely to change the AfD outcome to the point where overturning is justified. I wouldn't be opposed to restoration and then immediately relisting at AfD by the closing admin here, however, but it is not my first choice. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe for a second that any of those three editors checked Google Scholar. Only the first editor reports looking for sources. I think an experienced editor doing a WP:BEFORE D1 with this topic might have skipped Google scholar. The second reported the irregular CORPSPAM, which fits in with WP:IAR based on article content, and does not report any source search or notability concerns, so might not have felt a need to make a source search. For the third editor, I checked their last 21 AfDs, and they never report that they have found a source. That leads to the deduction that they don't say that they've looked for sources because they aren't looking for sources, at least enough to have added a source to the AfD. In summary, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS is not based on vote counting. Unscintillating (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is what WP:BEFORE D1 says, as of in permlink [1]
- The point is to show that Google Scholar is not part of the basic WP:BEFORE D1 search for a non-academic subject. Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And is there evidence that any of the participants considered and rejected sources that are presumably available in Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Swahili, Thai, and Vietnamese? Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow mainspacing the draft, and let anyone who disagrees with the new article take it to AfD again. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist I don't think the draft would survive another AfD, the best looking sources in it only mention the subject in passing and the rest are funding announcements. However it is a lot better than the AfDed version and I don't see any harm in giving it another chance. I don't have a problem with the close of the first AfD, while it shouldn't have been relisted so many times it was proper to close as delete rather than soft delete with the participation it (eventually) got. Hut 8.5 06:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As detailed above, I don't think the new sources are useful. On the other hand, AfD is a better place to evaluate sources than DRV, so I wouldn't be opposed to restoring this and immediately listing it at AfD to get the new sources evaluated. @Kshanghai: really should respond to my request call out the best sources for evaluation; we're being asked to do work to evaluate this; the nominator should at least meet us half-way by doing a little work to make our jobs easier. I agree that four relists was pointless. I'm happy to hand out a couple of micro-minnows for the relists, but trying to rewind history and say, what would we have done if the relists never happened is equally silly. We're here, and we should evaluate the article we've got now. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoySmith: I apologize to all the editors about my slow response. I have been traveling and in the Asia timezone. I've tried to respond to all of the comments above, and I agree that the original poster should do more of the work. I've tried to put the best sources above. Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cunard's sources below are much better than what was in the draft, and are IMO easily enough to justify restoring the article or reconsidering it at AfD. Hut 8.5 17:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got to agree with Roy that this doesn't pass WP:N. The sources are startup stuff, press releases, and passing mentions. That said, this is a well written article (verging on a stub) that has encyclopedic value. I'd personally prefer we keep things like this around. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: I hope that the article can be kept. My sense is there is not a perfect set of 2-3 articles that would prove the notability (WP:N) of the service. There are many, many mentions. If this article is removed on WP:N, there are other companies similar to italki that are smaller and arguably less noteworthy. I know that's not an argument in itself, but it's worrying from the perspective of impartiality (WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL)Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up to my own comment (which lacks a bold !vote), I'm now at endorse but restore deletion was reasonable at the time, but while none of the sources identified by Cunard seem to be hugely in-depth, they are, together, enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And following up my follow up per Cunard's request. Source 1 is quite in-depth. Source 6 is fairly in-depth. The others are not so impressive. But for our purposes, the answer is that there is enough sourcing to restore and let someone list if they want. The original close was correct IMO given the sources known and that discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Endorse as what takes precedence here is absolutely our policy and that's WP:Not promotion, and it wouldn't matter that an article satisfies a general notability which only suggests the possibilities of an article, not a guarantee, and this itself is in its relevant lead. It certainly cannot be suggested that a consensus was not clear from 2 votes that clearly read the article and noted necessary concerns; that is what we consider sufficient. An example is how the sources above are of the same press releases-nature as the sources before the article was deleted; nothing changed. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are two strong sources:
- The Teaching English with Technology journal article at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1140656.pdf mentions italki 109 times.
- This Chinese article from Sina Corp extensively profiles italki.
These sources are sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose, which says: Deletion Review may be used: 4. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
{{db-repost}} clearly is inapplicable after Kshanghai's rewrite. DRV should not deny recreation of an article that has been rewritten and where substantial sources not discussed at the AfD have been presented. If editors disagree that these sources are sufficient to establish notability, then a new AfD should be created.Editors at AfD specifically said that the article was "poorly referenced WP:CORPSPAM" and "corporate spam on a private company with no indications of notability or significance". The rewritten article addresses the promotional concerns. The two sources I provided above address the notability concerns. Hobit (talk · contribs) and Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs), you wrote "none of the sources identified by Cunard seem to be hugely in-depth" and "the best looking sources in it only mention the subject in passing and the rest are funding announcements", respectively. Would you review the sources I've provided? When deciding whether to restore/relist or not, the DRV closer likely will put significant weight on your views about the sources. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-
|
