This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
I tagged the page because I do not believe that it meets any of the WP:WEB notability criteria. In particular:
Criteria 1: (The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.) A Google search for "Javanese Wikipedia" returns only 207 results. Most of these appear to be pages on Meta or other Wikimedia sites, which do not qualify as being sufficiently independent. It may be that there are Javanese sources that meet these criteria, that I cannot access due to the language barrier, but they are not currently present in the article.
Criteria 2: (The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.) This is not asserted anywhere in the article. Again, if this is true, then it needs to be added to the article.
Criteria 3: (The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster) There is no evidence that there is currently any non-trivial replication of the contents of the Javanese Wikipedia elsewhere.
Now, I was aware that this might be controversial, which is why I did not slap it with {{Db-web}}, even though the article as it stands may be speedyable under CSD A7. Also, as I mentioned, there may be non-English references or sources that assert the notability of this website that I am not aware of, if these exist, then I will be happy to drop my objections. However, I'm just not seeing why we should keep this because it happens to be a Wikipedia. As noted in a recent AfD discussion, "There is no inherent notabililty for any Wikipedia version, like each article and subject is has to be judged on its own merits.". Lankiveil(speak to me)09:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
That's just silly. Seriously, aren't there better things to spend your time on? Wikipedia has so many bigger problems. --Merbabu (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously a very low sense of humour quotient - and a rather large one of ignorance of both the WP indonesia indonesian, and WP indoneseia english project issues with a delivery like that, It may work for english wikipedia english legal minds - but...
If indeed if we had deliveries like that to the 80%+ articles in both the projects that could have equal presentations - then there would be no projects - I had offered off line information about these issues - and they were not wanted. SatuSuro10:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK here are some sources, unfortunately not all of them are in English:
Thanks - We need to possibly blend them in as refs - will try to speak both lankivell and meursault offline about some further issues in the next day or so - so we can sort a few issues out - thanks all - cheers SatuSuro23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also for your moral support. Actually I was planning to expand this article, but then again it would be a case of original research. Meursault2004 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
