Talk:Cademia Siciliana

Notability[edit]

User:Phyrexian recently put up a notability notice on this article. Firstly, I would have thought that the majority of references used in the article are independent of the organisation itself. I also note that its board includes a decent spread of academics, experts in the field, so we are not talking about a bunch of fly-by-nighters. The last point is that I would hope the English wiki is not going to inherit the sort of polemics found on the italian wiki, where at best, regional languages are treated with absolute disdain, at worst, where the treatment borders on outright racism. Do we delete articles merely because the organisations are small? come from regions with no power base and which are historicall oppressed? represent a minority language? Is that truly in the spirit of wikipedia? We should note: there is no argument being made that the organisation does not exist; no argument being made that the organisation does not have on its board academics of the highest renown; and no argument being made that the organisation does not have as its focus the study of, and promotion of, a small, minority language.

If I were to research other small languages (with less than 10 million speakers, for argument's sake), would I, or would I not find an organisation tasked with being some sort of custodian of the language? Would it be non-encyclopaedic simply because that language is "small"?

If there are no objections in the next week or so, I would propose deleting the notice. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 07:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   +1 --dapal^{(write me @)} 07:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
   +1 --Smb16 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted both the deletion and notability notices, as mentioned in my comment, the references provided are clearly independent of the organisation (checked each on myself), and there is also evidence of the organsiation's public work with Firefox and Facebook to add Sicilian as a language option. Further to that, scn.wiki has commenced relying on the work coming out of the Cademia to support its own orthographic choices, which is an important development for scn.wiki. The organisation's age of one year does not appear to be an issue as far as wikipedia's policies go. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 21:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Recentism, local sources, cross-wiki spam and evidently not notable association. regional languages are treated with absolute disdain, at worst, where the treatment borders on outright racism.. sources??--Kirk39 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree this is an example of recentism. Regarding your question, it's notable that members of the Italian wikipedia community appear to be the ones most upset about having an entry on this organisation, which clearly exists, clearly has independent sources, and its work with Firefox, Facebook, and on bedding down an orthography for standard Sicilian is important for the Sicilian language, a language of wikipedia. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 04:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 year? LOL, if isn't recentism this.. this is WP:Spam and local sources or facebook are not reliable sources. By Supermac: You cannot be seriuos :-P--Kirk39 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood. I'm not talking about facebook as a source, I am talking about the Cademia working with Firefox and Facebook to have Sicilian accepted as a language in that media, i.e. the Cademia acting as a representative of the Sicilian language. So on that basis, I am taking the notices off. And yes, given the only outcry is coming from Italians associated with it.wiki, it doesn't really take too much to work out what this is all about, and who is operating in support of their own personal prejudices. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 05:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a plain vandalism, please stop it before being blocked.

PROD, per policy, can be removed at any time, notability tags cannot. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is plain vandalism? Please be reminded: I didn't write this article, I support that it should remain because there are four or five references which are clearly independent. So the question becomes: why are you so insistent that it be deleted? One of your colleagues used the excuse of "Recentism" (I kid you not), and now you have come up with "self-deemed". How about someone point out why these references are not independent, failing that, we just leave it. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 12:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi guys, i made this article because I'm working on a bunch of sicilian orthography and literature stuff, you'll see I edit a lot in sicilian related pages. I'm not really into unproductive arguing, I'm more into finding consensus on Wikipedia. I seriously thought this was notable enough for EN wikipedia, and from what i've put together a another user made this article in the IT space which started this conflict. Although I certainly know that IT wiki is a lot more strict... I personally would not have made it there. Anyway, so what is the best way to include this? In the Sicilian language article as a subsection? I felt like it was far too busy there for a non-profit. What would be notable for a non-profit? I looked at the notability guidelines for non-profit orgs before i made it and it seems compliant with that. The guidelines for non-profits on EN wikipedia being much less than difficult than for-profits. When their orthography is peer reviewed this year is that notable enough? I'm genuinely asking, because if this article doesn't meet notability and belongs elsewhere, as its creator I'm happy to move it or revise it. Please let me know, thanks! Paolorausch (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to remove the notability template? Paolorausch (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove it. This article now has several major national newspaper citations and some published books.Paolorausch (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]