Talk:Cademia Siciliana

Notability

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)

   +1 --dapal(write me @) 07:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
   +1 --Smb16 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Notability flag re-added

Hi, I added the notability flag, because the flag have been removed by (presumibly) the founder of the same organisation. Moreover, this non profit organisation does not appear to have an academic recognition from institutional organizations (for exemple the Centro Studi Filologici della lingua siciliana based at the Università di Palermo). The members of their board apparently are a PhD student, an IT-consultant of the Chicago area, and an Italian-American citizen that learnt Sicilian on internet. The publications that the organization claim are all self publications, and are not available. The links in the section "publications" are broken or unuseful. The Courier of the Unesco has been published in few issues (the last issue, the issue no.2, has been published in 2019). In particular their "Documento per l'ortografia siciliana" (also self published) that they massively promote on the internet, is deprecated by academics of the "Centro Studi Filologici della lingua siciliana". MathNT (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions @MathNT. Firstly allow me to state my conflict as I currently serve as Treasurer of Cademia Siciliana, Inc. I'd like to discuss your reintroduction of the notability tag. Here are the criteria for notability according to Wikipedia.

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

As you can also see this article has 40 citations. Although no doubt, over the many years the organisation has been active, I'm sure some links need updating. Among these citations, I see only 3 which meet the criteria of not being independent. Those being a Unicode submissions, and self-published academic materials. However, I see several very significant and independent citations, including the most prestigious Italian national newspapers of record, including La Repubblica (2x), Corriere della Sera (2x), Il Giornale (1x), as well as official mentions by Google and UNESCO. For context that would be the equivalent of ongoing coverage over nearly a decade by The Washington Post, New York Times and Chicago Tribune. Furthermore, there is substantial coverage (10+ articles already cited) from all of the largest Sicilian newspapers. Lastly, a quick google shows substantially more uncited articles. Cademia Siciliana's projects, particularly its orthography and technology projects consistently receive significant coverage by mass media for their popular relevance. The recent Google Translate Collaboration in particular received very significant coverage and means that it would be very difficult to argue that Cademia Siciliana is not currently notable, especially with the quantity of already cited media references. In fact the last time the tag was removed, you may notice that user πιππίνυ δ an admin of the Sicilian wikipedia itself and not a member of Cademia Siciliana himself wrote in favor of its notability in 2017, many years before it reached it's currently level of relevance.

To address some specific inaccuracies I believe I have identified in your original tag:

1) All of the academic publications are available, and many of them are available on Wikipedia on the page listed with their registered ISBN or ISSN.

2) There is no organisation by the name of "Centro Studi Filologici della lingua siciliana" at the University of Palermo. Perhaps you intended the descriptive organisation Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani

Respectfully, I suggest the notability flag be removed, as this question appears to have already been resolved in 2017. Paolorausch (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)