Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma Virtual Network

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. When the SPA "votes" are discounted there is a clear majority to delete, and more importantly, no independent sources have been found to establish notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Virtual Network

[edit]
Roma Virtual Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This group does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is no evidence that it has received significant coverage in multiple, independent published works. The article lists no evidence of a significant membership (of the organization itself, not its mailing lists), nor of major awards or achievements. The article claims that its main focus is activism on the Internet, but it doesn't appear to have a web page.

Finally, it should be noted that this article was originally written by the founder of Roma Virtual Network, User:Valery novoselsky,[1] which raises some conflict of interest issues. —Psychonaut 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This group meets the criterias for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), because "it has been the subject of secondary sources" reffered in the given article. And these "sources are reliable and independent" regarding Roma Virtual Network and Roma subject as well. And if someone would read articles on reffered links carefully, then he/she would see the depth of a coverage of the Roma issue by the source, including the info on given Network.
    Regarding the awards or achievements: I have the Word file with the expressions of gratitude from the variety of international and national Roma organizations and I hope that Lilia (RomanyChaj) would help me to put it in a new edition of a link discussed by us now.
    Regarding the web page: it is not necessary, since the activism is expressed and applied via mailing lists on Yahoo and Google servers. Valery novoselsky — Valery novoselsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Valery novoselsky, as the author of this article and the founder of Roma Virtual Network, you are uniquely positioned to provide the secondary sources you mention. May I suggest that you add them to the article, or at least list a few of them here? If the Network does have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then this will speed the development of consensus here. —Psychonaut 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. The Myotis 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are no independent sources to verify the notability. Only one of the provided sources even mentions the topic itself. There are no mentions on Google News Archive. It is basically a collection of Yahoo Groups (web-accessible mailing lists) with no apparent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a significant movement in migrant rights, which of its nature is underreported. That does not mean there are no reliable sources, merely that they may be ephemeral or harder to find. On a different scale, it's hard to find independent sources for Press Association because they will be swamped by material produced by the organisation. (I'm a long-standing editor who coincidentally happens to be a member of their lists.) --Cedderstk 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If this is indeed a significant movement, then reliable sources should exist. If none such exist, then it isn't as significant a movement as all of that, and WP:V applies. As WP:V requires, it is up to those who want to save an article to provide such sources.  RGTraynor  20:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator; notability not established by reliable sources. I'm more than happy to change my vote if such sources can be found. —Psychonaut 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion: Response on the argument of "RGTraynor" regarding the reliable source: the statement that Roma Virtual Network is under the auspices of well-known European Roma Information Office (www.erionet.org) is supported by the clear reference on http://www.erionet.org/networkmembers.html on this Network as the member of a broader ERIO's network. And this fact makes the reliability of questioned article stronger. Valery novoselsky
  • A secondary source merely quoting material produced by an organization does not make that organization notable. We need evidence that the organization itself is the subject of secondary sources. Can you provide for us some third-party articles which are about the Roma Virtual Network? —Psychonaut 08:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Valery novoselsky[reply]
  • Comment. Roma Virtual Network does not appear to be the primary subject of that article. Heather 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Ergot. In Russian: A kak u vas s russkim yazikom? Vi ego ne zabili eshio? Chto v stat`e napechatano ponimaete? Valery novoselsky [Translation: How's your Russian? Did you forget it already? Do you understand what's written in the article? —Psychonaut]
  • To Ergot. In Russian: Привет, незнакомый человек! В переводе на русский это означает "Цыганская Виртуальная Сеть". Нас во многих странах тоже "чёрными" считают и дискриминируют. Мы тут на Интернете статьи о своих создаём, а кто-то из редакторов Википедии вместо советов и корректировки наших небольших ошибок нас дискриминирует, как-будто мы гангстеры какие-то. Помогите этой статье про важный для цыган источник информации остаться на Википедии и не быть удалённым. Заранее благодарен! Valery novoselsky
  • Thank you. Someone asked me on my talk page not to use languages other than English on the English Wikipedia; I had been under the impression that this only applied to Talk pages. At any rate, while I certainly can appreciate the appalling discrimination that the Roma have faced, please understand that this discussion is simply about whether or not Roma Virtual Network meets our guidelines for inclusion. The problem seems to be mainly that there simply do not appear to be multiple articles in notable sources with Roma Virtual Network as the primary subject of the article, as per our WP:RS guideline. Has it perhaps been discussed as the primary subject of academic papers? If it has, that might be a way of making the article acceptable for inclusion. You might also consider creating a transwiki to the Roma Wikipedia, which may have different guidelines than the English one. Latcho Drom! Heather 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That is a well known Human Right's defender Network and its web page. Why do you erase that issue about the Roma people? Hhmb — Hhmb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Keep Keep Romani people and others working with Roma are spread around the world. A truly international people. The web is a perfect tool for disseminating info to this people. This is a very valuable resource for many of them/us. I myself am a filmmaker (www.GypsyCaravanMovie.com) and I've been working with Romani people for about a decade. These days, I meet Roma around the world and we often find that we are informed about the same items purely because of the Roma Virtual Network's valuable role as a news hub - forwarding different items of interest and concern to Roma worldwide. As a former journalist, of course I acknowledge that it is not ideal to have one person principally responsible for editing and controlling the disemination of news. And it raises an eyebrow to have an initial entry created by the subject of the entry. But on the other hand, there is not yet a budget to have a whole staff working on the RVN, and I think that many people around the world are lucky that the Roma Virtual Network discovers and disseminates relevant news items. Of course, the New York Times or any major newspaper operates the same way: people submit news and an editor correlates it and sends it out. And until recently they didn't have websites, but still they have always been notable organizations. It is a crucial backbone of a community. thanks for considering this plea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littledust (talk • contribs). — Littledust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Collection of mail-lists w/o audience, if I can judge it from browsing newsgroups. Setting up mail-list is very easy, getting people and feedback is the hard part. NN organization, I can name few which are orders of magnitude more active even if theya are limited to a single country. Pavel Vozenilek 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Pavel Vozenilek. Yes, mailing lists are easy to start with, BUT if you would know on how it is not easy to keep them for years and follow up with each single news or comment coming there... When you would look again on the introductory pages of these listserves, then you will see that they are moderated since year 2001 (!). Beside that, they do not pretend to be active as discussion platforms (otherwise there could 1000 times more messages posted there), but as the sources of up-to-date articles of a good quality on Roma issues. So, it is a different concept then the one which the moderators of adult- or market-kind of listserves hold. Hope my explanation is clear now. Valery novoselsky
  • Delete, nothing notable at all: no serious third-party sources, no significant user base (8K subscribed users is a relatively small number, and it needs a reliable source anyway). Almost A7, I'd say. MaxSem 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two questions to MaxSem. 1. What do you consider as "serious" third-party sources? 2. Why do you consider the existing sources as "no serious"? Please, explain. Valery novoselsky
Please read up WP:RS and WP:V. MaxSem 10:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To MaxSem. Talking about the reliable (i.e. serious) sources:

The links given in this article lead to the sites of credible and reliable organizations, such as European Roma Information Office, DiploFoundation and Southeast European Academic Network (seeAN). These organizations are trustworthy withing the civil society and policy-makers in European Union and other regions, beside that they are regarded as authoritative in relation to Roma subject. These sources are not self-published! They meet the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V and do not match the allegation that they are "not serious". Valery novoselsky

  • Keep. I write as Professor of Romani Studies at the University of Greenwich in London, and I have found this news service of considerable value to myself and to students since its inception. Although it is clearly linked to a particular institutional position in the ongoing debates of Romani politics, viz. that of the International Romani Union, founded in 1978, which organised the last 5 of the six World Romani Congresses, it brings forwards news reports and press releases from an enormous variety of sources, largely without any editorialising. This has made it more or less the Reuters of that intellectual space where academic Romani Studies intersects with organisational community activism.

There are of course always concerns where the main actor in an organisation writes its own Wikipedia entry. The entry is, however, modest and accurate. It would not be appropriate to delete it. Those who are unhappy with it would be better advised to edit it, perhaps with the intention of l) locating it more precisely within the history of Romani politics 2) indicating the existence of other competing information networks and services. I think on balance the latter are less influential, however, and usually more ephemeral and selective. Thomas Acton, Professor of Romani Studies at the University of Greenwich — 81.157.101.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep. My name is Yvonne Slee. I am the Coordinator of The Romani Life Society of Australia. http://www.geocities.com/romani_life_society/ Valery is doing a fantastic job for Roma people with the Roma Virtual Network. His motivation to help Roma comes from the heart and this important network is one of a very few where Roma can communicate with one another. Please leave it's entry in Wikipedia. —sintezza 12.50pm 25 June 2007 AEST
  • Comment, is it accurate to merge this into European Roma Information Office ? John Vandenberg 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have looked for and found evidence of other related organisations, but I havent been able to find any useful references to this Roma organisation. Unless someone can provide evidence of journal entries or news paper articles that mention this organisation, we simply can not cover it. John Vandenberg 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to it, there is a link on a website of UK-based Media Diversity Institute on http://www.media-diversity.org/articles_publications/Roma%20media.htm, and the article posted by Radio Prague on http://www.radio.cz/en/article/61253.

By the way, since the summer 2005 the executive director is Mr. Ivan Ivanov, and Mr. Valeriu Nicolae is not with ERIO since January 2006. Valery novoselsky

  • Valery, as far as I can tell quickly, none of those links you provided mention "Roma Virtual Network". Google can only find 60 articles on the web. John Vandenberg 07:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on the suggestion of John Vandenberg. John, when you wrote "but I havent been able to find any useful references to this Roma organisation" you meant European Roma Information Office (ERIO). Did not you? Valery novoselsky
    No, sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Roma Virtual Network, and "voted" for it to be deleted due to lack of independent sources. I am satisfied that European Roma Information Office is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. If Roma Virtual Network is part of ERIO, then we could mention Roma Virtual Network on the ERIO page. John Vandenberg 10:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmation Dear John! Indeed Roma Virtual Network is the part of European Roma Information Office and this claim is supported by the clear reference on http://www.erionet.org/networkmembers.html where this Network is mentioned as the member of ERIO's network. And this fact makes the reliability of questioned article stronger. In addition to it, I am the staff member there. Please, take a look at http://www.erionet.org/staff.html Valery novoselsky
  • Comment: Some of you newcomers seem to hold a wrong impression of what constitutes, under Wikipedia policy and guidelines, a "reliable" source. It is a reliable, independent, published third-party source with a proven reputation for fact-checking. Moreover, the source must discuss the subject of the article at length; it cannot be what WP:RS calls a "trivial mention." A mere mention of the RVN's existence on some website doesn't count ... and beyond that, Mr. Novoselsky being on the staff of the other organization disqualifies it as "independent" even if there were more than a trivial mention.  RGTraynor  12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the argument about the current lack of sufficient secondary sources. However, the Wikipedia:Notability article does, the way I read it, provide for "alternate methods for establishing notability", specifying as example "the organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." All this is generously vague, of course; but I suppose that the flexibility of the definition is deliberate, so some leeway can be given when institutions do not appear to meet with the primary definition but are significant anyway.

Regarding those criteria, I can only agree with what Prof. Thomas Acton wrte about the RVN above, as he put the case more eloquently and persuasively than I would be able to do. I think that his words would be well taken, and provide a reasonable alternative course of action.

Personally, I think that the RVN, working behind the scenes as networks like these tend to do, exercises considerably influence as a kind of information clearinghouse on Roma issues. Its membership of over 8,000 may or may not, as MaxSem says, be major by itself - it is certainly impressive for any NGO mailinglist in the field of minority rights - but the audience is also weighed heavily towards the policy makers, activists, academics and international organisations that shape the European discourse on Romani issues.

I understand the frustration about the attempt to bolster outside support through the claim that the article's proposed deletion is motivated by "hidden Romaphobia". I have no idea whether it is or not, but have not, in any case, see evidence of it on this page, and I know that rallying outside support in this manner is considered bad form. This should not, however, impact the discussion about the item itself, and should be regarded as a separate issue. No-itsme 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the only contributor to both is User:Desiphral, who is also the creator of the article here. As Desiphral is the only administrator on the Romani Wikipedia (and pretty much the only contributor as well), it's unlikely the article there will be deleted. Dewrad 14:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roma_Virtual_Network&oldid=1138314888"