Currentlybiscuit (talk | contribs) 2 cents |
→Foxmail: r |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
*'''Delete.''' I concede that the subject appears notable based on the Chinese sources. But that's not all there is to the question. We also have to be able to write the article. I don't see how that gets done.<p>[[WP:SECONDARY]] requires, ''"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published [[secondary sources]] and, to a lesser extent, on [[tertiary sources]]."''<p>I understand that we have procedures for dealing with non-English sources [[WP:NOENG]] but here's what it says: ''"When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page."'' I think this contemplates translating a few sentences, not whole articles.<p>We are not building a Chinese wiki, we are building an English wiki. I can see using Chinese sources as citations for a few of the claims but I cannot see writing an entire article based on them. I also cannot see using the Chinese sources as some sort sham evidence of notability but then writing the whole article from primary sources because those are the only ones anyone can read. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Delete.''' I concede that the subject appears notable based on the Chinese sources. But that's not all there is to the question. We also have to be able to write the article. I don't see how that gets done.<p>[[WP:SECONDARY]] requires, ''"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published [[secondary sources]] and, to a lesser extent, on [[tertiary sources]]."''<p>I understand that we have procedures for dealing with non-English sources [[WP:NOENG]] but here's what it says: ''"When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page."'' I think this contemplates translating a few sentences, not whole articles.<p>We are not building a Chinese wiki, we are building an English wiki. I can see using Chinese sources as citations for a few of the claims but I cannot see writing an entire article based on them. I also cannot see using the Chinese sources as some sort sham evidence of notability but then writing the whole article from primary sources because those are the only ones anyone can read. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
**I disagree, I think having articles based on Chinese sources makes the encyclopedia even more valuable by making foreign topics accessible to English speakers (assuming of course that the article is properly written). Even if the majority of users cannot check the sources, it's not really a problem as long as a few editors can. [[User:WikiLaurent|Laurent]] ([[User talk:WikiLaurent|talk]]) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
**I disagree, I think having articles based on Chinese sources makes the encyclopedia even more valuable by making foreign topics accessible to English speakers (assuming of course that the article is properly written). Even if the majority of users cannot check the sources, it's not really a problem as long as a few editors can. [[User:WikiLaurent|Laurent]] ([[User talk:WikiLaurent|talk]]) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Okay, go for it. But consider this my request for the translations per [[WP:NOENG]]. I understand the noble goal but I still think you need a practical way of achieving it, consistent with the guidelines. I don't think there is one is this case. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:22, 2 June 2011
Foxmail
- Foxmail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost no sources. No claim of notability apart from reported user count, which is of dubious value. It may be that this is notable in China; brought to AfD to establish notability one way or another. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Keep. Found in multiple books (400+), just click the Google Books link above. Some are in English, and many more in Chinese. And Google Books probably doesn't index even 1% of the Chinese books. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any nontrivial coverage in English—many of the hits are merely email addresses that happen to end in @foxmail.com, and none of them really meet the requirements of "significant coverage". This doesn't necessarily mean the subject is not notable, just that there is no evidence of notability in English sources. If a neutral party wishes to evaluate the remaining sources, that would be helpful. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- From WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"; even if you have lots of trivial mentions, they're still trivial (and usually only repeat just the same minimal information.) That's inconsistent with the whole idea WP:SECONDARY of writing an article based on them. Msnicki (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I've word counted some randomly selected articles from Google News archive, translated with Google Translate:
- http://news.pconline.com.cn/hy/0503/577240.html - 750-word coverage of the acquisition by Tencent
- http://tech.163.com/05/1122/11/235KOGSA000917GR.html - 800-word preview coverage (2 web pages) of Foxmail 6.0 Beta1
- http://tech.sina.com.cn/s/s/2008-01-10/09491965493.shtml - 2000-word review (5 web pages) of Foxmail 6.5
According to WP:GNG sources do not have to be in English. These alone are sufficient to satisfy the Wikipedia requirements and there are hundreds more articles like this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Could a Chinese speaker add a few references, with a note describing a little bit about what the reference says? Or explain what the references on the Chinese article are? Trilliumz (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you're worried about the notability of the sources themselves, see 163.com or sina.com. These aren't some backwater blogs. pconline.cpm doesn't have a Wikipedia page that I can find, but it's the Chinese equivalent of a site like Tom's Hardware. They claim to be number one in China [1] in their niche. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Foxmail is also covered in many introductory Chinese books on Internet, but I don't think Google Translate works on Goolge Books page because they are images. A few books like that which have multi-page coverage of Foxmail: [2] (9 pages) [3] (11 pages) [4] (8 pages) [5] (3 pages). FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Could a Chinese speaker add a few references, with a note describing a little bit about what the reference says? Or explain what the references on the Chinese article are? Trilliumz (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Good work FuFoFuEd. Notability is clearly established. Dream Focus 06:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Just pointless. T'would be better in China. Rcsprinter (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. New edits, scores of useless, insignificant search results and generic Rescue Squadron attaboys can't disguise the lack of any remotely significant coverage of this subject that can be used to establish notability. At best, Foxmail is a sentence at the already bloated Tencent article. Flowanda | Talk 11:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The lack of sources in English language doesn't mean it's not notable, and the lengthy Sina source alone establishes notability. We would be a poor encyclopedia if we ignore software that has a 30% market share in China. Laurent (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I concede that the subject appears notable based on the Chinese sources. But that's not all there is to the question. We also have to be able to write the article. I don't see how that gets done.
WP:SECONDARY requires, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."
I understand that we have procedures for dealing with non-English sources WP:NOENG but here's what it says: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." I think this contemplates translating a few sentences, not whole articles.
We are not building a Chinese wiki, we are building an English wiki. I can see using Chinese sources as citations for a few of the claims but I cannot see writing an entire article based on them. I also cannot see using the Chinese sources as some sort sham evidence of notability but then writing the whole article from primary sources because those are the only ones anyone can read. Msnicki (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think having articles based on Chinese sources makes the encyclopedia even more valuable by making foreign topics accessible to English speakers (assuming of course that the article is properly written). Even if the majority of users cannot check the sources, it's not really a problem as long as a few editors can. Laurent (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)