Talk:Estonian World

Proposed deletion

Hello,

I'm the person who added the article. I saw today it was proposed for deletion due to notability. Can you explain why please? The template didn't quite seem to match.

Estonia's a very small country (1.3 million people) and I know to the wider West it may not be notable. But within Estonia, this is a magazine of cultural importance; it's one of two English news outlets and of them is the main one read by the international community both inside and outside the country. I mean, it has a staff of ten journalists who steadily write for it - that doesn't seem non-notable.

For citations, it is steadily present in places where English speakers get news, such as the various foreigner Facebook groups etc. It gets less news in the Estonian-language press for obvious reasons. I did add one article showing about getting state funding, which also shows it's well-known / important enough there. 2001:7D0:8CA8:E280:694B:C85A:D8AE:272A (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability doesn't arise from being "one of two English news outlets" or having "a staff of ten journalists", etc. It arises per WP:GNG (as expanded in WP:NMEDIA) from having been significantly covered in independent and reliable secondary sources. If you can cite at least three such sources, then please do so, after which this can be dePRODded. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Wikipedia, and while in the 2000s I was active, I left about the time there was a large deletion of interesting material. So I'm not super familiar with what makes something notable other than that I know it's a very difficult standard, and I expect more so for non-Western topics. This is a non-English-language but highly relevant item for an EU country. While "a staff of ten journalists" might not be notable in itself by big country standards, remember this is a small country of < 1.3million and within that country, this kind of thing is significant. I'm worried you're looking at it with US/Canadian/UK/etc eyes. I have heard from others it's been difficult to get a lot of Estonia-related material on English language Wikipedia before, while something like German material can be much easier.

I added several citations, from ERR (well-known news), the Open Estonian Foundation, another news site, the Estonian president's website (not notable?). Is that sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:8CA8:E280:957E:C2C4:8C4D:CF22 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello again - more info. "It has come to the attention of several editors that Estonia is under-represented on the English Wikipedia." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia and this project is to improve English-language representation. I'm not a member of that group and as noted don't use a Wikipedia account any more, but I think the project's existence and goals validate that it's important to add content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:8CA8:E280:957E:C2C4:8C4D:CF22 (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, there are 2,000 Wikiprojects, for just about anything you care to imagine; that in itself doesn't really prove anything.

Secondly, FWIW, I'm Finnish, so I'm certainly not "looking at it with US/Canadian/UK/etc eyes". Not that it matters in the slightest, but thought I'd mention that.

And thirdly and most importantly, you're missing the key point, which is this: Wikipedia only summarises what independent and reliable published sources have said about a topic. If no (or not sufficient) such sources can be found, then it isn't possible to summarise what they have said, and therefore it isn't possible to have an article. This is what we mean by notability. It has nothing to do with whether something is 'important' or 'large by its country's standards' or 'oldest X' or 'first Y to do Z', and it also isn't in any way weighted for or against countries of any size.

On that last point, please note also that the sources don't have to be in English, so we're not setting an English-biased standard here by insisting that English-language sources have covered a topic; only that multiple independent and reliable sources have. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I added several, as noted. 2001:7D0:8CA8:E280:F4AA:B8:A1FF:3980 (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Of the seven sources currently cited, only one, the ERR piece, is secondary. Even it doesn't really provide significant coverage of the subject, discussing instead their funding situation specifically, but it is at least on the right track. However, it alone isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ERR is a secondary source.

Head Kodanik is a secondary source (another news outlet.)

The Open Estonia Foundation surely is, though also a primary source since it is about an event and recognition. The notability guidelines note a source can be both.

So that's three plus a primary.

Estonian World's own About page would count, but I know it's self-referential: it's a news source, but you can't take what a news source says about itself, I suppose. I think three-plus-one being added is pretty decent though? 2001:7D0:8CA8:E280:F4AA:B8:A1FF:3980 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Just another note - I'm not a Wikipedia contributor. I used to fifteen years ago but the site deleted a lot of content, and even though the content wasn't interesting to me, I disliked the direction of no longer being a knowledgebase. So these days I just pop in occasionally to edit, or revert vandalism if I see it, or similar.

An article like this about a significant cultural institution was a clear lack. I am very happy to hear feedback that it requires additional information or more sources, that's great. Deleting, though, is harsh. It's very unpleasant to put the effort into writing an article about something important and not see any attempt to verify, to establish if it's noteworthy, to ask for more info, to do anything respectful towards it: it's simply nominated for deletion a day later without discussion.

I know I'm not a Wikipedian and this kind of conduct may be established practice within the online community. But does not, by real-world terms, come across as particularly well-intentioned for improving the site, and certainly if this was a real-world interaction would be harsh. Perhaps you could have just added a few 'citations required' and celebrated your southern neighbour having more information about it? I hope the new additions satisfy you, but I would encourage you not to swiftly and needlessly delete, including in general if this is typical. 2001:7D0:8CA8:E280:F4AA:B8:A1FF:3980 (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: IMO the included sources fall short of establishing wp:notability. But IMO such probably exist and I'm marking it as reviewed. Suggest finding and including a few independent sources that cover this topic in depth. Happy editing!

North8000 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)