Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs

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. Despite improvement, consensus is still on the side of deletion with this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs

List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to meet our notability guidelines on stand-alone lists, in that multiple independent secondary and reliable sources are present that discuss this as a coherent grouping. The only source provided is from a dictionary, which does not count as a secondary source, and a Google Search does not turn up any other sources on my end. The PROD was contested with the rationale that "There is a list of NZ towns. According to the logic of deleting this page, that page should also be deleted", which while understandable does not follow, as one article's existence on Wikipedia is not a guarantee for the existence of any other article. I'd be happy to merge this into another article, such as the main New Zealand place name list, but I doubt that it is a viable list in of itself. If it is kept the name will have to be changed, but that's secondary and I'd be happy to do that later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the author of this list started adding a mark to each town with an NZSL sign at List of towns in New Zealand. If completed, that might be more appropriate than this separate article.-gadfium 04:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have no objections to such a merger if that is where consensus leads. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The list is improperly formatted, and - as user gadfium noted above - is made redundant by recent/upcoming changes to List of towns in New Zealand. Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. I need to correct an error and then perhaps gadrium will change vote. The list differs from the NZ list that I started adding the letter N to, so it needs a different list

2. The argument about a single source is not strong. Lots of wiki pages have only one source.

Something is wrong with this webpage I'm typing on. I can't see the other arguemnts while I type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to spin off to a whole different list in order to accommodate a single marking, perhaps the N can be used as a superscript like <sup>N</sup> to produce ^N. Also, the fact that many articles have only a single source to them is an error on their part, reflected with the {{One source}} cleanup template, and not a valid reason to make such articles. If other sources exist that have yet to be added to the article that would help it establish notability that would be a reason to keep, but I have yet to find them. Also, you can see other people's arguments while typing by pressing the "Show preview" button below the edit summary field, and don't forget to sign your posts at the end of them with four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you John. The N idea doesn't work. The other list is different. It's a list of town only, not place names. Some are in common but they are two different things. The show box is useful. thanks. Kelly222 (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the extent that it's different, perhaps this could be merged into a theoretical List of places in New Zealand, although that itself has issues of clear inclusion criteria. I might agree with you that this could be a spinoff if judged solely on that front, but as said above I have yet to see evidence that the topic is notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. And no problem. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ross doesn't make a strong argument. It can easily be formatted properly. Kelly222 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you on that front, but I still think that this is a bit redundant given the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This page doesn't show up in my watchlist. Can I add it? Thanks John. Notable seems to be a question of taste and interpretation. I don't understand why the only list of NZSL place names is not a useful reference in an encyclopedia. When you say all of the above could you be more specific and only use items that haven't been refuted yet. Kelly222 (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can add a page to your watchlist by clicking on the star icon in the tabs immediately left of the search box. Usefulness in of itself is not a sufficient condition for inclusion in Wikipedia, as it is not a directory. While notability can very well be hard to deduce in many specific cases, the criteria themselves are fairly straightforward and I don't see any evidence that this list passes them. Please don't take this personally; this is not a reflection of you even as a Wikipedia editor, it is merely a statement that the topic at hand does not appear to be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. (Also, please add any subsequent comments to the bottom of this page, rather than the top. Thanks!) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable topic for any stand alone list. The distinction of NZSL is already been covered in an aforementioned article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again John. Can you spell out for me which criteria it doesn't meet. I'm still not sure what you mean. Also Ajf is mistaken. It's not about NZSL, it's about NZSL Place Names. These are two different things. Isn't their argument is tantamount to saying there should be only one article about the English language in the encyclopedia. So can they change their view? Kelly222 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our list guidelines state that One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by [multiple secondary, per the general notability guideline] independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. As I've said before, the only source describing NZSL place names as such is a dictionary, which is only a single source and not secondary. (It is true that Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability., but I don't believe that any of those apply to this list). You are mistaken about Ajf773, who's referring to the List of New Zealand Town Names. Generally speaking, it is expected that encyclopedic material on a topic is limited to one article on that topic, and as said before a merger with that article, whether it be just town names or all place names, is likely the better course of action. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Nurg (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Perfect example of listcruft. Schwede66 23:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for your patience John. I think I'm right about Ajf because they say "The distinction of NZSL is already been covered in an aforementioned article." but I think this is wrong, unless you can help me by showing me the article. In relation to notability I have now learned that lists don't have to be notable. And lists should have informational or development purposes. This article about NZSL Sign Language is definitely informational, but I'm not sure what developmental means in this context. Maybe it means it can develop people's knowledge and education. If this is the meaning then the article serves that purpose. Kelly222 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of notability on your part, and I apologize to the extent that I've contributed to that. We are quite explicit when we say that [n]otability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables, and generally frown upon the production of arbitrary lists. Given the near-unanimity of the consensus to delete, it is quite clear that this list does not appear to meet those guidelines at this time. If you are unable to provide other sources that describe and analyze this topic as a coherent group, then I'm afraid this article will very likely be deleted, all else being irrelevant. Please don't delude yourself and focus on any other arguments for this discussion. (Also FYI, "developmental" refers to internal Wikipedian stuff such as article creation.) Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • John, thanks once more. You proposition that there is near unanimity for delete fails to take account of the discussion subsequent to peoples votes. If their vote is based on wrong information and this has been shown, then if they fail to continue the discussion, this is not right. Also a google search shows there are other sources which applaud this as a "coherent group". I'm sure you can repeat the google search (NZSL "place names"). But here is a second source which should meet your requirement (https://www.odi.govt.nz/nzsl/nzsl-fund/previous-nzsl-fund-rounds/round-1-recipients/geographical-signs/). This source is the NZ Government, so I think it is a very strong and reliable source. I think it is certainly notable if a national government makes such a statement. So given this new information I hope you can change your view now. You also said "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Thank you for explaining developmental, but the informational content remains and is important. Kelly222 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That source right there is all you needed to show all along; if there are multiple such sources (the initial dictionary source still doesn't count I'm afraid) then the list can be kept. (I apologize for telling you about that "Lists" sentence, and if you will look closer in the context where I brought it up I expressly state that none of those apply to this list in question; indeed, if it were true virtually any list would be kept by extension of the word "informational", which would trivialize the notability guidelines and is generally not the case; the sooner you disabuse yourself of such notion, and just focus on the sources, the better.) I agree that consensus can be wrong and mistaken arguments are (ideally) not given weight, but none of the arguments in this discussion I would say are mistaken (with the exception of the poor formatting argument). All this boils down to is whether more sources exist in the style you have brought up; it would be tedious and indeed tendentious to focus on anything else. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks John. I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence. Does that mean it should now be kept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If and only if more sources can be found. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here is another source [1]. Kelly222 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm worried that I haven't had a reply from John and that the article might be deleted at the expiration of the set number of days without further notice. Can someone please explain what's going on? I would like to try to improve the article and the formatting. It needs a table but I don't know how to do that. Kelly222 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the article will be deleted has nothing to do with the state of the article's content, including formatting, but whether you can convince the others that the sourcing available for the topic is adequate for Wikipedia's purposes (I'm personally agnostic towards the second source you've given), which will be decided by the closer (usually an administrator) at the end of the 7 days, although it can be extended (relisted) at the closer's discretion. Here is how you make tables in wiki-markup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks John. I put more info in and put it in a table. Will you please reconsider your vote and change it from agnostic to keep? The source is a government website. I'm not sure of your reasoning if you say that source is insufficient. As to convincing others, they have not responded to my critque of their reasoning, so on that basis this process is flawed. It isn't a discussion on the merits. So I think the article now needs to stay and hope you agree. Kelly222 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is good, I'm glad you have made such improvements. Please find more sources like the first one if you are able, as it appears to be a critical analysis of the topic of NZSL place names; the second one is a poster that describes some of those names and doesn't necessarily state why those would be significant. Once you are confident that you have found as many such sources as you think you reasonably can (and please put them in the article and not here), let me know and I'll have a look; if I think that it warrants broad reconsideration I can ping (notify) the people who have participated in this discussion if you'd like. Do note, however, that if they don't respond their opinions still count to the extent that the discussion closer will see fit (which might not be at all if the sources are good). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or at least leaning that way. At first I'm not sure what to make of this. Probably many/all editors here would be sympathetic to the idea that Wikipedia should support sign language if there is a reasonable way to do so, like we also choose to support vision-impaired people by providing sound bites / recordings of articles. Simply noting which places have a sign language name doesn't seem helpful to anyone though (not that usefulness is a major criterion for what Wikipedia covers). What is the policy about Wikipedia actually including useful stuff, like, say, a link at the Avonhead article to the mini-page that gives a video of the sign language term for Avonhead? This seems to me similar to Wikipedia including little sound clips giving pronunciation of a title, which is often done. Note also that for many place articles, especially for a place where multiple languages are used, and the place has a name in multiple languages, that we often/usually provide the name in each of the languages. For example, for Danzig, the article starts off:

  Gdańsk (/ɡəˈdænsk/, also US: /ɡəˈdɑːnsk/, Polish: [ɡdaj̃sk] ^ⓘ; Kashubian: Gduńsk; German: Danzig [ˈdantsɪç] ^ⓘ) is a city on the Baltic coast ...

And further, if the identification of places having NZSL names defined is of interest, that can be done by use of a category, e.g. create Category:Places with NZSL names and put that at the bottom of each article like Avonhead. The category can be used for places that are towns and other places too. And, by the way, if it is worth categorizing these, then by wp:CLNT, it is probably worth having a list-article about them, showing with bluelinks all those that have articles, and showing by redlinks ones needing articles, and allowing footnotes and photos and more. About the list-article itself, shouldn't each row contain a link to the specific sign language video about that place? --Doncram (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, maybe some of the "delete" voters are just seeing this as a non-standard list-article somehow. The topic of NZSL placenames seems notable to me, based on just the first source referred to. Maybe move the article to the title NZSL placenames, and give a bit of an intro, then provide the list. --Doncram (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have suggested a potential merger with the main NZ place list article; a merger with the NZSL article is also possible, as would be a dispersal of such content to each place name's article if existent. What would you think about such a merger? I myself will have to mull over this potential information more; also, please note that CLNT only permits such duplication without requiring or even encouraging it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of towns in New Zealand. Certainly of interest, and given that NZSL is an official language in NZ, certainly worth saving, especially is our aim is to be inclusive (there's enough systemic bias on the project without deleting articles such as this one). I'm not convinced it can survive as a stand-alone list, however. The other option might be to transwiki it to one of the other projects. Note - if kept, it will need an extensive tidy up - at the moment it's a shambles. Grutness...wha? 13:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hey, there is something really positive and valuable here, while AFD is an unfortunately horrible/meant/cruel/stultifying/awful/negative/destructive venue that is not well matched to teasing out what can/should be done. I !voted "Keep" but not very strongly above, and am more sure now that this work and/or ideas around it should clearly be saved for Wikipedia. I think this AFD should be closed "Keep" for now, with admonition to get stuff sorted out better, and with delivery of a Nobel peace prize to Kelly222 for getting it started. And referral to whatever office of WMF deals with accessibility issues and to whatever WikiProjects and GLAM subprojects or whatever else can/should be involved constructively in capturing/developing good stuff here, with parties getting set up to work with the NZSL community and the copyright owners of the NZSL dictionary initiative.

About using mini-videos of signs at each NZ place article, I am pretty sure that is a great thing to do. Implementing it well requires more skills than just Kelly22 and I have. For example, some tiny icon needs to be found or designed to be used in an attractive/meaningful minilink, like the little link thingees for pronunciation recordings in the top of the Danzig article. The design needs to either link externally to the minivideo for each place available at the NZSL dictionary, or, probably better, arrangements should be made to import all of the separate videos in some format to Commons, or for new minivideos to be produced, funded by a grant if necessary. There needs to be some guideline about which articles get these new NZSL links: certainly NZ place names are naturally included, but not all place names worldwide, and probably some other NZ-specific foods, songs, monuments, other NZ cultural matters.

About formatting of the list-article, there is much to improve, but that does not need to be sorted at AFD. It is clear to me that Kelly222's first attempt with it was a good effort, but they appear not to be familiar with list formatting and the potential of what lists can do. I made some edits to introduce a column title row, to begin a column providing links to the actual specific NZSL sign videos instead of just asserting they exist and leaving it to the reader to look them up in the dictionary, and began wikilinking the place names themselves. It is not clear to me what is the default/current ordering, because it has several long alphabetical sequences but keeps restarting without any clarity what those are. To me it seems obvious there should be a full alphabetical ordering of English language names as one option, ordering by Maori names, and some ordering by size of cities/towns and geography (i.e. group them by north island vs. south island etc., leading off with the biggest cities and working down to remote places, or working from north to south, or similarly). In the draft, there was confusing usage of 5 or more separate rows for "Auckland" alone, widely separated in the non-sortable list, which all were identical, conveying that there are 5 or more different NZSL signs for it, but not providing the signs, when IMHO all the 5 signs ought to be provided in just one merged row. And there are several more towns having pairs or trios of signs, which rows need to be merged. And there probably should be a column for, or a "Notes" column should be used for, explaining the NZSL naming strategy for each sign. Like there should be info/commentary about the signs themselves: what is the literal translation i.e. is this one a combo of signs for "large" and for "rock" plus a pouring-a-pitcher-of-water motion and why is that the derivation, how is this one a sign used primarily by the older adult community, who invented this one clever sign and when, and the like, with detailed sourcing.

About outright deletion, that should be off the table. At a minimum, the list-article is good and needed as a WikiProject workpage towards addressing all the separate NZ articles.

About sourcing and properness of a list, i think this can be improved. The good "first source" is fine, and I think there must exist papers and studies and teaching materials about the NZSL place names, for example organizing them by strategy of naming (like how the sign for "Christchurch is "C-C", i.e. two letter "C"s in a row, and like how some are "sounds like" clues, and some are based on the Maori name of a place, and so on). The list can include notes with footnotes about that kind of stuff, and possibly be sortable by naming strategy or other typing of the signs themselves. This is too much to be addressed immediately during this AFD. Cleanup and improvement is needed, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Note we do have list-articles labelled as glossaries, such as a glossary of architectural terms, and there are other precedents for how this can be re-packaged a bit. There are higher policy level concerns here, rising up to the worldwide WMF level, which should not be short-changed by a few uninformed-on-these-kind-of-matters random editors at AFD.

Warning to anyone tempted to close this as "Delete": if you do that, I think you should be, will likely be, ridiculed for being a horrible ambassador of Wikipedia towards to the deaf community. Think Clint Eastwood: "make my day". Like whoever removed all female writers out of the category of American writers, to put them only into a lesser subcategory, which was once an incredibly poorly handled political matter. I see news articles and blogs and twitter campaigns and discussion on The View and other talk shows blasting you, in your near future. :) (Okay, I mean this lightly, not as a threat that I would be involved in carrying out, but still.)

Bottom-line: This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia can be great for, can be great about, and removing this list-article rather than giving some encouragement and TLC to it would be a great mistake. With some simple first-level cleanup, which I am myself willing to do, this is absolutely fine and good as a list-article in mainspace Wikipedia. With some kind of later second-level improvement I sincerely believe that it can/will be a learned/scholarly great contribution, taking advantage of Wikipedia list features, Wikipedia editors' creativity, and what the great NZSL community has to offer and is probably willing/wanting to share/integrate better into the biggest/best encyclopedia of the world. :) --Doncram (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gadfium, Rsfinlayson, Ajf773, Nurg, and Schwede66: I'm pinging the people who !voted delete on this to help them engage with the new arguments as they see fit. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My delete vote firmly stands as I mentioned earlier, the content is already expressed on another article. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a directory, and the addition of NZSL external links to the article doesn't give the article any more encyclopedic value. There is always one editor who writes an essaylike reason in a a valiant effort to retain an article, we should not be swayed by the length of arguments. Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I withdraw my earlier suggestion that the list be merged into List of towns in New Zealand as the list now contains links to videos/diagrams which would be unsuitable for that article. I think the current list might be more appropriate to be hosted at a site such as www.nzsl.nz, as it is essentially a list of NZSL dictionary entries. I would welcome external links to such an externally hosted list from the List of towns in New Zealand and the article New Zealand Sign Language.-gadfium 18:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Timtempleton below advises us that the externally hosted list exists, so I have firmed up my position to delete.-gadfium 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this. Ajf773 is wrong. The content is not in the other article which I explained above. Kelly222 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. The List of towns in New Zealand already denotes which towns are covered by the NZSL list. This list not only non-notable, it's a content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read the arguments made since I earlier voted for deletion. I note that the format of the article has improved greatly, and that in the tabulated form new columns of info have been added. I note the passion of supporters of the article. However, I still think the article is not notable and should be deleted. Nurg (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even if the lede did a better job of explaining why this is worthy of being kept, the info is already being maintained at [[2]], and this seems to be unnecessarily redundant. As an extreme way of making this point, it would be similar if someone wanted to create a list called "list of films displayed at Rotten Tomatoes" or at IMDB. A template, like Template:NYSE American, but linking to the video on the www.nzsl.nz site would be a more scalable and effective way of sharing this info. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 16 December 2019 (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.