Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/QueerSportSplit: Difference between revisions

The outcome of this request for deletion has not been decided yet.

QueerSportSplit

QueerSportSplit (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

ImprovedWikiImprovment has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Only seeing social media online. Likely not notable. --IWI (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

The outcome of this request for deletion has not been decided yet.

Discussion

•  Delete Clear advertising, their username is the same as the article --Hellothere4 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OMG - read better QueerSport is generic - Queer Sport Split is non-profit organization from the city of Split. There is no adverising in providing communal programs and services for LGBTIQ+ population in small city in homophobic region. QueerSport (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You are advertising your brand on the wiki and that goes against the guidelines and QSS is not notable enough for an article. I support what your organization is doing but it doesn't fit the guidelines here. --Hellothere4 (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hellothere4 how is it not notable? Please check the link for local media exposure in mainstream press and for international projects/networks. Please consider and say explicitly what do you think should be notability for community sport organization? I fear you are pushing EN hard notability to a wiki project that is Simple Wikipedia that is targeting non-native speakers and is to help with content beyond American/British centrism. QueerSport (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@QueerSport: You didn't bother to simplify the article so your intent is clearly to advertise. Also if I can't find it on wikipedia (and trust me I checked redlinks) it's not notable. --Hellothere4 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hellothere4: article was fairly simple (could be better) before it got cross-wiki spam marked. By the way you did not make any effort to answer any of my questions, so I will asume you prefer your own opinions based on assumptions. QueerSport (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@QueerSport: It's not notable because the first things that comes up is the social media and there are barely any sources any other sources beyond that.--Hellothere4 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hellothere4: I listed sources that are not social media.QueerSport (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: @QueerSport: You could save the article from deletion if you add (or show you've already used) reliable sources. Did newspapers write about QueerSportSplit? Has it been in any magazines? What do third parties say about it? These four sources I see at the bottom, are they newspapers? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure Darkfrog24 - I keep editting but the Trigger Happy guy who started this via photo that I uploaded on commons as copyright violation (that he now retracted) might not be sufficienly happy...after you call for Deletion and screem SPAM he needs to prove to be right for sure. QueerSport (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a copyright violation, I simply added a template saying there was no evidence of permission. You later provided it, so I removed the template. --IWI (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

IWI you did not even click the link of the source file to see if website is under CC SA licence. You instantly went to 2 different Wikipedias (for one you have no idea of language and level of homophobia presents) and marked it cross-wiki spam! In my book that sounds like super hostile and antagonistic thing to do to anyone, let alone someone making first edits on the project that is also primarily to serve non-native speakers, but focuses on English learners. Please take time to reflect and consult with other people that have experince on this. Maybe consult WMF experts (?) or communities running en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies. I certainly feel I should after this experience. QueerSport (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I know it can be difficult when your article gets deleted, but unfortunately this group is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. --IWI (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

IWI you acted inadequate and changed your argumentation few times. You are also priviledged native speaker and in my opinion should retract from discussions, after you already made 3 mistakes...that you can not accept. I can manage with page going back to Drafts and work on notability, but you remain in the same mindset of policing in the wrong context. QueerSport (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete I don't see any notability. As well, there are no reliable sources (The only semi-reliable source is Slobodna Dalmacija). ShadowBallX (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

ShadowBallX How is Slobodna Dalmacija only semi-notable? It is second biggest newspaper in Croatia. QueerSport (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I just put semi-notable as I am not 100% sure if it is notable. ShadowBallX (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

ShadowBallX as there is not such thing as semi-deletion, please change or remove your comment. Thank you! QueerSport (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@QueerSport: If ShadowBallX chooses to vote delete for reasons saying there's no reliable sources, then he can vote that way. Let's say that Slobodna Dalmacija is notable, it would be the only reliable source in the article. We shouldn't really be calling articles notable because they have one reliable source. —Belwine • 💬 • 📜 10:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Belwine I am not telling him how to vote, but to either contract the comment or vote, as it is incompatible. As for Slobodna Dalmacija, there is more than one link presented - please check. Also there are other notable sources in institutional world that are linked. I would like to remind that the original clame was 'social media only'. There was just no need for cross wiki spam accusation. QueerSport (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep This is a notable LGBTIQ+ organization in a country hostile to LGBTIQ+ people. It is a relatively new organization but has won awards and done significant international work. Remember that Wikipedia articles expand and improve over time—in its current state the article can be classed as a stub or start, and some of the spelling errors can be revised, but no reason for deletion. RachelWex (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Notability is my rationale for deletion, not anything to do with how the article currently is. --IWI (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  To be perfectly correct and precise User:ImprovedWikiImprovment you initialy went histerical over copyright of its image on Commons without chacking the source website where it came from (explocit CC-SA licence), then you went on to call the page Cross-wiki spam to Serbo-Croatian wiki and marked it that way (creating fast deletion there, that I needed to argue over and that was now revised), so now you calim it is actually notability, while your comment on the page still registers 'only social media', though I added plenty of both large scale international project links and mainstream media coverage as references. Do you realize how your actions effects others who are less priviledged? How your criteria is biased? How you are trigger-happy compared to what would be more adequate response on Talk pages? I still did not even get a simple super generic copy-paste Welcome notice, but I spent hours managing situation after you impressions and policing? This is 2021. Wake up. Take (and give) care. It might be more fulfilling eventually then keeping the Always-right-about-everything hat. QueerSport (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep Plenty of refs. This is a stub for improvement, not advertising for deletion. — OwenBlacker (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  @OwenBlacker: I genuinely cannot find a single source that is based on QueerSportSplit exclusively. —Belwine • 💬 • 📜 10:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete Reads like a bit of an advertisement, and probably COI-editing as it was created by QueerSport (talk · contribs) - very similar username to article. Also, searching up online, the first results are Simple English Wikipedia and Facebook. I cannot find any reliable sources through searching. —Belwine • 💬 • 📜 10:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Belwine QueerSport is generic in Europe more than it is in USA. It is not percived as negative. There is QueerSport.info, QueerSport.EU and QueerSport.org (sadly down). If I would use GaySport would your acusations be the same. Simple Wikipedia is not for native speakers and for centrist point of view of English as British and American culture only. Wikipedia is global project and here notability of project of non Commowelth contexts should also be present. Please also do not reduce the search to lazy Google query as Google renders results based on location and previous search history (my results are different in South Eastern Europe for same keywords). I already listed a lot of links. Also please consider not to discriminate people with epileptic and other issues by using decorative rendering of your name, as it renders you inadequate. Thank you for your input and have a nice day! QueerSport (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi.
Firstly, if I registered an account called "Belwine" and started a page called "Belwine Organisation", would it look like I have a COI? Absolutely. That's why I think it is fair to think that you may be related to QueerSportSplit, if you have made an account called QueerSport.
Secondly, with Google, I went through 10 more search pages, and I could only find one result related to QueerSportSplit, which was a WordPress blog.
Thirdly, about my signature, what exactly is the problem? Decorating your signature is allowed, and other users use similar signatures, with emojis and the red colour in the background.
Thanks, —Belwine • 💬 • 📜 15:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Belwine I just came across communication on Meta with Requester for deletion...looks like you really wanna rub elbow greese. Good luck! and thank you for saving our eyes finally. There is no policing of visuals so you are safe. Take care! QueerSport (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Technically you aren't supposed to use images in your signature. Its debatable if that means emojis as well. I have been contemplating that recently actually and debating asking you to fix it. -Djsasso (talk)

Oh, I didn't think it was an issue as there are a few other people who use emojis in their signature (on other wikis), but I am absolutely fine to change my signature if necessary. —Belwine • 💬 • 📜 15:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Wikipedia:Signatures would probably be a good read. It also mentions. "In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with color." -Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it. When I originally made my signature, I did notice that other people had colours in the background as well, which is why I added red to the background, but honestly, my signature is not too big of a deal for me, and so I am fine having it like this. —Belwine (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't bother me personally, but based on the comment above others can have issues. -Djsasso (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: This is probably a group of like-minded people wanting to spend their time together, and using an association for that purpose. While the username of the contributor might suggest a conflict of interest, I think we should look at the larger picture. This is a local association, which offers some activities to its members. As a side-note: Naturism started at the end of the 19th century: People had good feelings bathing naked together; later they wanted to do other activities together as well (also in the nude). Today, Leucate (near Narbonne, in France) probably has one of the largest naturist holiday sites in the world. It is the second-largest in France, after Cap d'Agde. So: this is about judging whether the association up for deletion meets a minimum level of notability. It is not about like or dislike of the LBGTQ crowd. It's enough if they like each other. --Eptalon (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Delete not notable. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I love this casual judging posts of native English speakers who patrol Simple Wikipedia, speak no other languages, but with one Google search confirm that social media results come first for queer NGO in homophobic region they know little about...argh! QueerSport (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Delete - The user was blocked on en.wiki for this exact same reason. See here where they got blocked, tried to argue the same, got denied, and created a draft of the same article which went nowhere. PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not the same, blocked for name, was not discussing notability.

Did not try to argue anything special. My expectations over EN were lover.

Person who blocked the page Draft sunmission is the same one who started all this - so it was clear bias on both sides due to existing conflicts from Commons to here to Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia and back to EN.

...also congrats on keeping close to each other as Native EN speakers with on Simple Wikipedia ;-)

Would be totally surprised if someone would pop up and knew about context and institutions referenced. Not here. QueerSport (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment:@QueerSport: I want to caution you, based on your last few comments, to please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. PotsdamLamb (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

talk not only civil but fully away. Simple Wikipedia is not what it was to be IMHO. QueerSport (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: User has been indefinitely blocked for promotional user name by Operator873. I feel this discussion is now moot and the deletion of the article should take place immediately under G11 - Advertising. PotsdamLamb (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I agree. I would also like too add that the two users who voted keep. The first user has no edits beside this one and the other one hasn't made an edit in almost three years. --Hellothere4 (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The user was blocked as a violation of the username policy. A creator being blocked does not automatically mean we should delete. --IWI (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

PotsdamLamb and Hellothere4: no. The discussion is ongoing, and multiple editors have commented on both sides. I would highly recommend you focus your efforts on discussing the article's notability, and refraining from attempting to discredit those in favor of keeping the article or attempting to skip the discussion phase. I understand both of you are relatively new to this project, so: when an article is nominated for deletion, we discuss the subject's notability to determine whether it is an article we can keep. The creator is (generally) irrelevant. G11 could have been an option prior to this article being requested for deletion, however I would have declined it as there are multiple reliable sources which discuss this organization specifically. Vermont (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• So this is interesting. I think it has some potential, however it would need some simplification work. I'm leaning towards delete because I'm just not seeing the type of widespread coverage I'd like to see to be able to source the article properly and with more than just passing mentions. I wish we had somebody here who was more familiar with Croatian issues, because I am afraid I'm missing something with the language barrier. So for the moment, I'm a delete, however weakly.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: Everyone: please stay focused on the article, and its content, and jugde whether that is worth keeping. Who created or contributed to the article is irrelevant. For this reason, we don't have a deletion criterion based on who the user who created the article is, or what he/she did.--Eptalon (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah I agree. My rationale for starting this request was that I believed it failed our notability guidelines. It is not particularly important to a deletion discussion who created the article on this wiki. --IWI (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: The keep voters seems to said something about Croatian wikipedia oppressing their views, with the recent hrwp issues, this is a credible claim to investigate. I will suggest asking some neutral hr speakers to ascertain the notablity, and should hold until sources are all cleared - as sources can be not in English. If there is consensus, I will try to ask someone on meta. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  After speaking to a hr (Croatian) speaker and trusted user,  Delete Pure spam and non-notable as the sources aren't reliable. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesteng friends you have there Camouflaged Mirage!

For ALL under-informed HR Wikipedia still has 50% of right-wing leaning admins, while key neo-nazi-promoter admin Kubura just recently got global ban. I worked on that article on HR to make it notable there and it is quite above the notability line there.

I would advise you to keep your friends sources (#fakeNEWS) for projects where you know of context and can ask more than one! I would advise local Admins to monitor accounts for this kind of 'insights' in near future. Seems like Simple Wikipedia contributors collected some gems as friends from Croatian Wikipedia. Zblace (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zblace Hello, sorry if you don't know, I am well aware of all the hrwp issues and clearly I know what is the controversy there. I had acted in caution when such a statement arose where claims of controversy is being brought up. As of the people I spoke to, I am confident of their fairness and they are trusted. To add, I am just seeking assistance to read the sources, not about determining notablity or whatsoever, those I can do it myself. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Just adding a point about the article on hr.wiki. From what I can see it doesn't have any issues raised about its notability or anything else, and has been largely ignored by anyone beyond the creator. Considering the anti-LGBT atmosphere of Croatia as a country in general and some editors on hr.wiki in particular, an article about anything LGBT-related not drawing any attention for 5 days is probably at least an initial indicator of it being worth including on an encyclopedia. And having anything printed in Slobodna Dalmacija is about as notable for a minority NGO as you can get in this part of Europe. Ionic22 (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Delete Quakewoody (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Quakewoody can you please refrain from marking the same article as Cross-Wiki-Spam on HR Wikipedia. It is outsid eof your language and context reach. Article was already proven non-spam on SH Wikipedia and even initial proposer IWI changed his original claim here that only notability is an issue. Your action od still doing this week later renders you hasty and trigger-happy which goes against core principles of contributions and should be regarded as offense under UCoC. As your hasty action is cross-wiki I am posting it also across. Peace and chill! Zblace (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE - this account is blocked on EN Wikipedia, hence activated here. Admins please cross this vote and also consider ban, as I see on the Talk page / this is not only issue. Zblace (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Zblace, making incorrect reports/tags is not an offense under the UCoC. Vermont (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Vermont it is not the mere act there, but the toxic intention to do it for the situation here in last 12hours of what should be the time before decision on deletion. also doing it without single argument and single statement on both ends (+ first and only edit on HR Wikipedia)...it is obviously melicious and with aim to tilt in direction of deletion. As @Nesmir Kudilovic pointed out there are multiple valid sources in Croatian version, that are relevant for the context. I would argue that even for regional relevance as this is the NGO working on LGBTIQ+ sport in multiple large scale and multi-year EU funded projects. Zblace (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Zblace, you can discuss the notability of a subject without resorting to personal attacks. If you continue to insult and accuse other editors of maliciously disagreeing with you, there is no option other than a block on your account. Vermont (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• The fact that you are claiming the government is blocking you, Wikipedia is suppressing you, and editors have 'issues'... you are fighting a losing battle and you know it. Quakewoody (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: I don't know if I have the right to vote here, but would like to provide a comment about the Queer Sport Split. It is an legal entity (association) under Croatian law. I believe this source provides context of this association as a project partner of the European University Sports Association. It is also portrayed on CroL.hr (LGBT news portal), and on Kulturpunkt.hr (a portal for cultural topics). A smaller community, by definition a minority, should be eligible for inclusion with a smaller number of (nevertheless) authoritative sources. In the time, Wikimedians provide helping hand in (dis)coverage of topics hidden before. As said before, I'm just here to comment, because there is a claim that a user from hr.wiki gave information on non-notability. -- Nesmir Kudilovic (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• according to the above statement, which is totally wrong but worth repeating to demonstrate exactly how wrong it is - no, you don't have the right to vote or comment because this isn't your primary language. Quakewoody (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: As I see people are still discussing, I propose to push the closing date, by half a week. It would be good, if it was possible to judge the subject without needing to consult other language wikipedias. Sourcing does not have to be in English, but it should be reliable--Eptalon (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I will note there are attempts to label my !vote as not-credible and lying about the notablity, filed at Croatian Village pump here by @Zblace:. I will ask all participants who came from the link to read en:WP:CANVASS before commenting. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Came from that direction and curious to see how you Camouflaged Mirage interpret your negative vote? (since you said you asked Croatian contributor) ((is that not a proxy)) (((selective based on who you are a friend with?)))

•  Keep, but possibly rename to Queer Sport Split or QueerSport Split? Reading this conversation, I started wondering if its non-Croatian contributors realize the reality of LGBTQ+ life in Croatia? The University of Toronto's School of Law says this about this organization and everyday life for the LGBTQ+ community in Croatia: "The first openly gay organization in Split, QueerSport Split, was formed in 2011. It has not been able to publicly advertise for new members due to fears that they could be targets of homophobic violence. The group hosted the General Assembly of the European Gay and Lesbian Sport Federation in 2012, but police advised the group not to publicize the event for fear of a negative backlash in the city." Does this quote help understand why it is difficult to find press coverage of the organization? Moreover every time this organization is referred to, its name is spelled differently: Queer Sport Split, QueerSportSplit, QueerSport Split, etc. The organization has received coverage from Amnesty International, the European University Sports Association EUSA, etc. It even has received some coverage in the Croatian press; for example, in the Croatian daily Jutarnji list. -Yupik (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Independent of my personal opinion as to the subject's notability, I should note that hostility/discrimination against a subject is not a reason to provide a lower bar for notability. GNG is the same for all articles. Vermont (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources I provided meet GNG; I am not asking for a lower bar for notability. I was pointing out that using a bar set at a certain number of ghits for Croatian sources to ascertain notability might prove difficult. -Yupik (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources have to be reliable and independent to meet GNG. Human rights charities are naturally going to cover human rights organisations (almost exclusively), so I don’t think we can describe those as independent. So far I have not seen enough coverage to change my opinion. --IWI (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So by that same logic, we should also not allow Croatian sources, since they will naturally cover Croatian organizations. -Yupik (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That does not make a source not independent. That would be like saying Sports Illustrated is not reliable for determining sports notability because they exclusively cover sports if we were talking about a sports organization. (The previous comment does not reflect my opinion on this particular subject or these particular sources as I have not looked at either. I am merely commenting on the fact that being a subject specific source does not make something non-independent since I happened to see the preceding reply pass by recent changes.) -Djsasso (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine the two organisations are in contact with each other for the purposes of their human rights work. This is different to human rights (or sports) news organisations; it is a charity and is not a secondary source. It's also worth noting that this organisation is mentioned in the Amnesty International source exactly once as an "example"; the same can be said for the EUSA and University of Toronto sources. Even if these are independent, they are not in depth. GNG does not appear to have been met at this stage. --IWI (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ALL: Please note that proposer IWI followed me to a Village pump page on of Croatian Wikipedia with acusation of canvassing without even understanding what I write. After I translated. Position was retracted as they never did it. This all adds up to super eratic policing behaviour exposed before above. --Zblace (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that you were trying to get people from the Croatian wiki to vote keep here, which is canvassing. Please do not try to do it again, as you will possibly be blocked in the future if you continue. ShadowBallX (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Like I said there, I did not accuse you of doing so, I just informed that if that was your intention, it isn't allowed. It's still not clear to me exactly what the intention of the post was. --IWI (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep. It's a legitimate entity active on the LGBT scene in Dalmatia, including as one of the organisers of the Split Pride. --Igor Windsor (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  It being a legitimate entity does not automatically mean it is notable. --IWI (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Keep I came here from the wikidata entry and have noticed that there are sources if you do a Google search, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Plus @Yupik: mentions sources above by no less than the Toronto University (fame of an cratian association has therefore crossed the ocean).It is apparently a pioeering association of its kind, I see no valuable reason of wanting to delete a piece of LGBTIQ history from one of our wikimedia projects Nattes à chat (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

New closure date: February 22, 2021 --Eptalon (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)