Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amharic Wikipedia
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 keep. Maxim(talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Amharic Wikipedia
The Amharic Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Amharic Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.
I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.
A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
| Date AFD closed | Result | Wikipedia Links to AFD |
Visits per day [1] | Article count (official) [2] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-02-22 | Keep | List of article pages | n/a | n/a |
| 2007-10-09 | No consensus to delete | Kashubian | ??? | 1,600 |
| 2007-11-12 | Redirect | Kashubian 2nd nom | ??? | 1,600 |
| 2007-02-22 | Keep (part of the List of article pages AFD,above) | Scots | ??? | 2,200 |
| 2007-08-02 | Delete | Scots 2nd nom | ??? | 2,200 |
| 2008-03-07 | Redirect | Hawaiian | ??? | 322 |
| This AFD | This AFD | Amharic | 31 | 3,000 |
- delete per past AfD's — Johnl1479(talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Past AfD's on other articles have nothing to do with this article. Even past AfD's on this article would have no bearing on this AfD, because consensus can change. 152.3.246.241 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ironic. You claim to perceive a prejudice against these kinds of articles, even as your subjective argument for keeping them betrays a prejudice in favor of them. 152.3.246.241 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think DGG is right in that there are editors prejudiced against coverage, often citing WP:ASR, even as Wikipedia has become a top-ten website and the subject of news headlines. It took several days for a mention of the Marsden controversy to be mentioned in the Jimmy Wales article, and there were numerous attempts to delete the Essjay controversy, even though it was arguably the most widespread coverage of any Wikipedia-related topic. But objective evaluation of this topic by the primary notability criterion does lead one to a conclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think DGG is right in that there are editors prejudiced against coverage, often citing WP:ASR, even as Wikipedia has become a top-ten website and the subject of news headlines. It took several days for a mention of the Marsden controversy to be mentioned in the Jimmy Wales article, and there were numerous attempts to delete the Essjay controversy, even though it was arguably the most widespread coverage of any Wikipedia-related topic. But objective evaluation of this topic by the primary notability criterion does lead one to a conclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ironic. You claim to perceive a prejudice against these kinds of articles, even as your subjective argument for keeping them betrays a prejudice in favor of them. 152.3.246.241 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The nominator is not seeking deletion of this article "based on other AfD's." He said he provided the table for reference purposes (standard practice at AfD). I think you might find the nominator's actual reason for deletion to be located right above the part where he wrote I recommend a delete for the above reasons. Just a hunch. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- "standard practice" ??? no it is not, not that I have ever seen. I see it as an attempt to create undue influence. I still believe that all 5 of the current "cookie cutter" nominations shoud be sent to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- They shouldn't. It might turn out that some of these Wikipedias being nominated for deletion pass WP:WEB, while others do not. Does this one? (This AfD should focus on that question, but so far only the nominator and Dhartung have addressed it.) 152.3.48.13 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- In a Cookie Cutter nomination (yes, word for word in all 5 nominations), How is this nom addressing this Article, doing what you are asking us to do. The nomination is fundamentally flawed and has been closed as such in several of the other nominations. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- They shouldn't. It might turn out that some of these Wikipedias being nominated for deletion pass WP:WEB, while others do not. Does this one? (This AfD should focus on that question, but so far only the nominator and Dhartung have addressed it.) 152.3.48.13 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- "standard practice" ??? no it is not, not that I have ever seen. I see it as an attempt to create undue influence. I still believe that all 5 of the current "cookie cutter" nominations shoud be sent to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The nominator is not seeking deletion of this article "based on other AfD's." He said he provided the table for reference purposes (standard practice at AfD). I think you might find the nominator's actual reason for deletion to be located right above the part where he wrote I recommend a delete for the above reasons. Just a hunch. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - fundamentally misguided nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WEB is fundamentally misguided? 152.3.48.13 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - it is only a stub at present, but covers a genuine subject. Let us hope this WP prospers. I see no reaon not to have English language articles describing foreign language WPs. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2008 (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.
