Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divehi Wikipedia

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 even though it seems a bit like eating your own foot, it seems the consensus is there's no reason that it shouldn't have to pass the tests that we apply for inclusion of other sites. Yomangani^talk 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divehi Wikipedia

This article fails or violates at least one of the following: WP:WEB, WP:SELF, and WP:NOR. It only has 182 articles according to meta:List of Wikipedias. Depending on how this goes, I will nominate other similar articles for deletion as well. Edit: This was also prodded and deprodded a few months ago.—EdGl 21:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry, but I can't agree with your reasoning. Wikipedia articles about other language Wikipedia spin-offs are both appropriate, useful, and not a violation of any of those policies. Certainly not of the spirit behind Wikipedia. Please check The discussion on the Czech language Wikipedia. Especially before proposing any further deletions. Mister.Manticore 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment No independent sources in the article. If Wikipedia itself is the only possible source, then the subject is undeserving of an article. Seems like just an inappropriate self-reference to me. Is the article on Wikipedia not enough to satisfy any of our "articles about Wikipedia" needs? (Save for "offshoots" of the article on Wikipedia, like Wikipedia in popular culture.) Please prove to me how it passes WP:WEB, WP:SELF, and WP:NOR. —EdGl 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say that all of the information in this article is easily derivable from Wikipedia's own information content services, as well as Bi-lingual Wikipedians who contribute to both Wikipedias. (and we'll assume that there are sources for the language of the Maldives, if not, then you'd best object to that elsewhere). And the reason why the article on Wikipedia is not appropriate for this information is simply a matter of convenience. That article is large enough without trying to describe every language. Yes, this is a shorter one, but some of the others are not, and those have enough details that they should clearly be kept. Given that, I'd rather keep articles on all of the languages than none. And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others. It's clear to me that Wikipedia should document itself, and part of that documentation is information on the foreign language version. To do otherwise just seems strange to me. But then, I said as much in the Czech language discussion. You aren't offering anything new, in fact, you're repeating the same arguments given there. They aren't convincing. Mister.Manticore 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I have a strong argument in that this article violates policies and fails notability guidelines. The "repetitiveness" of my arguments have nothing to do with their strength, and "they aren't convincing" is merely your opinion (which I respect). You said "And I don't have to prove how it meets any of those standards, since I don't believe any of those standards are appropriate in deciding whether or not to keep this entry, or any of the others." What makes this article an exception? We can all of a sudden disregard policy and notability guidelines? I am very skeptical about your statements, which provide a weak argument at best in my opinion. —EdGl 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate. It's called common sense, and it's a valuable asset in making all decisions. Wikipedia should describe itself(Wikipedia is notable, for many reasons, but even if it wasn't, I'd say it would be important for the site to be able to describe itself). Wikipedia has foreign-language components(if you don't believe this is the case, I suggest you visit wikipedia.org). Since they clearly exist, they should also be described. Given the potential length of those articles, having seperate articles is probably the best way to do that. Can you come up with a good reason why having this article is a real and substantial problem? I can't. Can you come up with a better way to do things? I doubt it, but you're welcome to make suggestions as to other options. However, deletion is not one of them. It's not effective. If you've gotten any objections to the content, you can check it seperately, but please don't try AfD's for cleanup. Anyway, you can cite policies all you want, but if you'll check things like WEB, SELF, others, they have exceptions and clarifications that clearly show they aren't to be adhereded to like a bunch of mindless machines. Mister.Manticore 02:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

we can disregard guidelines like that, when they're not appropriate. I hope the closing admin will take comments like that into account when deciding on something like this. If we start ignoring WP:RS, then where does it stop? We might as well throw WP:V out the window. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:NN: "Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to remain on Wikipedia. This is a necessary result of Wikipedia being a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. The terms 'importance' and 'significance' are also in use, and for practical purposes on Wikipedia they are similar." That is why this article is problematic. Also, if I could have come up with a better way to do things, then I would just do it. But, since I don't believe this article deserves to be on Wikipedia, and I want to get a consensus on whether it should be kept or not, I brought it here. By all means, if you convince me that this article should be kept, I'll change my mind. I want to see what the community thinks first. I want to get suggestions out of you guys :-) —EdGl 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the very first part of Notability is: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. . Note the not set in stone, common sense, occasional exception. This is clearly one of those. Mister.Manticore 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly one of those? Well I don't think so. Take a look at the article again (Divehi Wikipedia). It has been around for eight months, but it is grown to be no more than a five sentence stub. Without independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, I don't see this article growing at all. I don't even think this article has the potential to grow. An article about the smallest nook/cranny about Wikipedia shouldn't exist. The "occasional exceptions" would include the other "language Wikipedia" articles (that have thousands more articles than the Divehi Wikipedia) that I didn't put on AFD. —EdGl 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So, it's a slow growing encyclopedia, which is no surprise given the number of speakers. So what? It's a simple article, with nothing that needs extensive verification outside the wikipedia software. Believe it or not, it's quite possible to check the number of articles it hasAll you need is this link and you can verify the date at this site. Other than that, the only other information refers to the language itself, which I assume you're not questioning. All in all, no big deal. Does this article need to grow? I suppose, but that would depend on Wikipedians who speak both languages being interested in informing us. I doubt it'll happen quickly, if at all, but so what? That's just a result of the idiosyncratic growth of Wikipedia, not an argument as to merit. As it stands though, what content is there right now is not a problem, no matter how much you try to make it out to be. This is not a mountain. It's not even a molehill. Mister.Manticore 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sorry, self-references are not encyclopedia articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient notability from being a Wikimedia project Bwithh 00:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not without reliable sources which are not self-references. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What statements do you believe need more reliable sources? Mister.Manticore 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, I don't know, the very fact that the Wikipedia exists, since we cannot rely solely on the web site's own claims and the existence of the website itself as evidence that the thing actually exists. You might as well throw WP:V out the window. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because clearly there is some doubt that Wikipedia exists, and that there are foreign language versions of it. Do you not realize how absurd that is? Mister.Manticore 20:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Without voting in the AfD, I just have to keep that quote for posterity. "... we cannot rely solely on the web site's own claims and the existence of the website itself as evidence that the thing actually exists." -- Zoe, 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC). The ultimate in anti-existentialism. It sounds like something that could be from Monty Python. "I'm not dead, I'm telling you!" "Do you expect me to just take your word for that?" AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, if you're wondering about the statistics, I believe they may come from here [1]
    • Yet again another self-reference, which is not an acceptable reference. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is your point to show how flawed and biased processes on Wikipedia are? I believe that's not exactly secret. Pavel Vozenilek 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you that Wikipedia:Assume bad faith is intended as humor and should not be followed. Never do that again. My intention is not to "show how flawed and biased processes on Wikipedia are", but to get a consensus on whether to keep or delete this article. What exactly did you mean by your question anyway? —EdGl 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A totally unacceptable response, Pavel, and I suggest you rethink your attitude. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I came here to get community opinion, input, and consensus, not to be accused of bad faith. Not only were your comments unacceptable and offensive, but totally unproductive as well. Can you please defend your keep vote instead of bashing fellow Wikipedians? Seriously, is your point to show how uncivil Wikipedians are? (Of course, if you apologize, all will be forgiven and forgotten.) —EdGl 18:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I trust that this vote will not hold any weight towards the final decision on this case. —EdGl 04:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, being a Wikipedia does not automatically notability make. This one is too small, and has almost no activity. Punkmorten 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notable secondary sources can be found and quoted. Many Wikipedias have enough outside coverage and secondary sources to justify a carefully written Wikipedia article (including the English Wikipedia). This one does not, as far as I can tell. Xtifr _tälk 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see why Wikimedia projects shouldn't be held to the same standards as any other websites. As such, this is a clear case of utterly failing WP:WEB: there are no reliable third-party sources showing that any notability criterion is met. The wikipedia itself, of course, is anything but a reliable third-party source. Sandstein 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, individual Wikipedias have to pass the WP:WEB test same as any other website. No mainstream media coverage (unlike the English, German, French, etc. Wikipedias), no evidence of exceptional popularity. Andrew Levine 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination). Havok (T/C/c) 09:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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.