Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaiian 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 Redirect. There is no inherent notabililty for any Wikipedia version, like each article and subject is has to be judged on its own merits. Looking at the opinions expressed in this discussion in this light, the consensus seems to be to either delete it, or to redirect it. As redirects are cheap, I close this discussion as redirect. Fram (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiian Wikipedia

Hawaiian Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Were this website not a sister site to en.wikipedia, would it have an article in wikipedia? It has 1216 articles ... not notable. By the looks of the template on the article, there are another thirty or so articles equally not notable to be taken into consideration, so we'd better use this AFD as the precedent, unless there has been a previous discussion of this issue. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The key question is, how notable should a wikipedia site be before it gets an article on the EN Wiki? Hawaii has 1216 articles. Finnish has 120,000 articles. Cheyenne has 11 articles. Surely there is a cut off. Or is /everything/ wikipedia does notable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally it's also worth noting that there seems to be a single predominant editor, and that the majority of pages are single sentence sub-stubs [1] [2] [3] &c. Indeed Special:Longpages probably says it all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Inasmuch as there is an article on French Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia there is already precedent for having these articles. Padillah (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a list of Wikipedias here - I'm not convinced the smaller - less than 10,000 articles - should be considered automatically notable, regardless of previous discussions. Addhoc (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So is less than 10,000 your definition of small ? see WP:BIGNUMBER Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I would even suggest a speedy delete because it fails every point of WP:WEB. No notability demonstrated, and I don't think we should have articles about Wikis that haven't received coverage. Nothing against the creator, had he added a couple of references (which should not be hard to find, local newspapers in Argentina have covered Wikipedia as a whole and the Spanish Wikipedia in particular, I guess newspaper or reliable sites from Hawaii had done that as well for this wiki) this discussion would be moot. Wikipedia is somewhat biased in certain aspects (like allowing Wikia links instead of considering them spam just to promote Wikia ranking), but we are talking about articles, not just external links now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia 132.205.44.5 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia or List of Wikipedias. Wikipedia editions shouldn't be considered for articles unless they have received some specific news coverage, or have some other specific notability - this one, along with most of the ones in the lower half of {{Wikipedias}}, states nothing except an article count and an unsourced fact about the editing culture. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep-it's so needs to be here!CholgatalK! 08:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • NB, User:Cholga has been disabled for sockpuppeting; I've struck out his argument (or, rather, !vote) as a result. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Wikipedia. Not sourced, does not meet WP:WEB, and giving special preference to articles about Wikipedia goes against WP:ASR. No prejudice against recreation when it has achieved independent notoriety. • Anakin (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikis are as notable as the languages they cover. This is exactly what should be available. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Why? Notability is certainly not inherited in that direction - if I wrote a web page about some notable topic, that web page wouldn't suddenly become notable. Keep in mind that we don't grant special notability to Wikimedia projects - the exact same rules ("external sources", most importantly) apply to our own projects as would apply to any other subject. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. In no way is this Wikipedia notable in itself. Singularity 07:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and redirect to List of Wikipedias. Unlike French Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, or German Wikipedia, this article contains very little information and has zero sources other than the subject itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an automatic claim to notability, and I can't find any significant independent sources myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. Cites no references, I can't find any, and given that any topic related to Wikipedia attracts lots of editors for obvious reasons this probably means there aren't any references anywhere. Wikipedia projects are not inherently notable, and if the project was not related to Wikipedia its article would have been deleted very easily. Hut 8.5 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I really think it's a little bit silly not to allow articles on Wikipedia sister projects. People -- as in readers -- would expect the information to be here, and it's sort of obtuse insistence on notability to apply it in these fairly straightforward cases. Leave it as a stub if need be. No human being who's not invested in the inner-workings is going to object to this article, and the vast majority of people are going to find it a little obnoxious if they are looking for information about Wikipedia (and how else would they find it if not looking) only to see we've deleted it. I would argue for a common sense exemption allowing stubs on Wikipedia projects. Pretend you are not a Wikipedia editor and aren't interested in our guidelines. Would you not find it absurd to be unable to find this information on Wikipedia? Redirect to List of Wikipedias if we must, but I think this is a thoroughly non-productive debate. --JayHenry (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Where are you seeing the suggestion that there should be no articles on Wikipedia editions? Nobody's making that argument. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Fails WP:WEB. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep - Nomination is basing notability upon the 1216 articles the wiki has, thinking that this # is WP:NOTBIGENOUGH is a false reasoning for deletion. (And as for "so we'd better use this AFD as the precedent," ummm NO! Articles are discussed upon individual merit, that is what AfD is for, thus it allows consensus to change. It would be a horror show if the first 15 years of Wiki-AfD set precedents that the following 100 years had to follow.) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What notability does the wiki have besides its (small) article count, though? There doesn't appear to have been any external coverage of the site, which is the primary criterion for coverage of web sites. The precedent that I think the nominator is trying to set is simply that small Wikipedia editions aren't notable by default (i.e, unless there's external coverage). Zetawoof(ζ) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • How about being notable as being the only Hawaian Wiki. I would tend to agree with many of the Keep comments of the previous AfD. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the list. My convenient rule of thumb is that if it's on Main Page it's probably notable enough for an article, otherwise it's better covered in some list or other; Main Page list has a cutoff of 20,000 articles. Size of a Wikipedia is also tends to be usually proportional to the size of the editor community, visibility in local media, and usefulness to the people using it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested above. Irregardless of the number of articles it has, there is simply little-to-no - and certainly not sufficient - third party coverage to infer notability. Notability is not inherited simply because it's a Wikipedia project. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To closing admin As touched on above, there is precedent to delete comparable articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots Wikipedia (2nd nomination). Personally, I lean towards Weakest Possible Keep. faithless (speak) 12:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/direct. When it grows up or becomes otherwise more significant (e.g. U.S. President identifies its development as major priority in State of the Union Address), maybe it can have its own page. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Slightly weaker keep than faithless. I did not like the basis for the nomination... we do not make policy in AfD. Also this article title has 5 "i"'s in it... how cool is that? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: We do not make policy, but we do make precedents ... we have another 20 or so of these articles to do. This AFD references previous AFDs. The next 20 will reference this, assuming this one passes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We do not make precedents. That is the whole reason for the AfD process, so Articles can be evaluated on their individual merits or lack thereof. Please, feel free to point out to me where these precedents you speak of are recorded in an uneditable and set in stone form. Do you not find it intresting that ther very first 'Keep' !vote in this AfD Citing a precedents for keeping was told WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that alone should show the invalidity of the concept of precedents on WP. Any concept of a precedents being set by previous AfD's can also be disproven and similar opposing precedents found if we look hard enough. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, suffice it to say: one AfD, a precedent does not make. But there are certain huge classes of AfD's, say High Schools, for example, where none ever ever ever get deleted, so it would be convenient, sometimes, if the deletionists would just accept the inevitable and just stop nominating them. But I have yet to find any class of article that has a similar precedent for delete... every article stands on its own merit... so to nominate the perceived weakest article in a group with the claim that it will be the precedent for a deletionfest is, IMHO, really poor form, and so I am inclined to keep it just to oppose that kind of insidious process manipulation. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a disgraceful accusation, that I've picked on the weakest example & sought to make a precedent out of it. I stumbled across the Hawaiian Wikipedia & nominated it. I'm fairly sure there are weaker examples. AGF completely and utterly out of the window. It really sucks to have that sort of accusation made; really sucks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:46, 7 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.