Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inuktitut Wikipedia (2nd nomination)

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, not being convinced by claims of notability as a property of Wikimedia. Michaelas¹⁰ 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inuktitut Wikipedia

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

Feh, what the feck is this crap? Come on, this is an incredibly minuscule wiki that has received no coverage in reliable secondary sources, it fails WP:N and WP:WEB by a country mile, and there is nothing but a one-sentence stub here because there's nothing to say. The article probably won't grow beyond a one-sentence stub for years to come. Expand the List of Wikipedias to cover the minor relevant data and there's no need for this. Not notable, how is it intrinsically so? Moreschi ^Talk 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The only reason this crap isn't speedyable is because it's been through AfD before and (somehow) kept. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing verifiability, attribution and notability. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No content worth merging. We should not keep an unsourced virtually contentless article about a non-notable Wiki just because we "like" Wikis. It is already listed in List of Wikipedias. The similar article on "List of Wikipedias" on Meta-Wiki [1] has lots more info and data fields than the Wikipedia article: how can we improve the Wikipedia article with the additional Meta-Wiki data? I wish I could read Inuktitut Wikipedia, to see if there are any "rouge admins" among their 3 admins or any what the edit wars look like among the 136 users. They have managed to create over 200 articles with over 4,000 edits, but according to one talk page I found with English text, [2] " we almost totally lack any articles whit actual content". The editor with that tak page was said to be the only active speaker of the language (!) active in the project, which doesn't make much sense. If, in time, it has several independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of it, a separate article can be created. It sounds like a worthy project, and I congratulate those participating in it. It should be a valuable asset to the 40,000 or so speakers of the language in northern Canada if they get some articles with content. Edison 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep Nationality-specific or language-specific subjects remain notable regardless of the small size of the country. The major online encyclopedia in one language is as notable as the one in another, even if it is and will remain much smaller.DGG 23:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on, that just can't be right. You mean to tell me that this tiny wiki is somehow intrinsically notable because it's part of Wikimedia? I have no doubt it's worthy of a mention somewhere, but it's fundamentally not notable. It doesn't deserve it's own article. It's a non-notable website just like any other. Moreschi ^Talk 09:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I don't get it... isn't this an article that promotes a Wikipedia project and Wikipedia's philosophy of an encyclopedia whose editors come from all over the world? Maybe we should nominate the "Make a donation" section for deletion, since it's blatant advertising. It's notable enough that Wikipedia has articles in Inuktitut. The alternative to mentioning this is that the column on the main page would feature all languages, not just the 35 main ones. I think, however, that any article about a Wikipedia in another language should include a few examples of what articles are on there. I can't read Inuktitut and my computer can't even support the font for its alphabet. I'll go one further-- I think it's bigoted to write off another culture's language as "non-notable". Mandsford 23:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not writing off another culture's language as non-notable. I'm writing off a non-notable website, per these rules, as non-notable. Yes, we are supposed to push free content to a limited extent, but it's blatant POV/systemic bias just to keep articles on non-notable websites around just because they're part of Wikimedia. Notable how? This website has not received any coverage in independant reliable secondary sources. It's patently non-notable. Moreschi ^Talk 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison. I don't see anyone here calling the Inuktitut language "non-notable", nor should they, but their Wikipedia does not seem to have attained much notability. --Metropolitan90 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Edison. Maxamegalon2000 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per DGG -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this particular version of Wikipedia. I'm sure a mention somewhere is appropriate and sufficient. GassyGuy 18:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Seeing in the talk page cited above from this Wikipedia that only one of the editors speaks the language and that most of the few articles lack any real content makes me wonder if some of the smaller Wikis aren't just vanity hobbies like people creating "micronations" or "constructed languages" or imagined nobility heirarchies of defunct governments, and as non-notable as "things made up in school" and collectively less notable than the 493rd most important Pokemon character. If people who don't speak a language are writing the articles, it probably comes out like English As She Is Spoke or like something translated by Babelfish [3]. I had always pictured these as the collective work of people who shared a language and sought to preserve their culture and history, and this one at least looks like it isn't filling that role, based on the English comments readable on talk pages of it. Edison 22:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no content--Sefringle^Talk 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but welcome back if they ever get big and famous. There's little to be merged to Wikipedia or related articles. Sure, a Wikipedia language edition would be worth discussing if we could say more about it than "it's a Wikipedia in language X that was established in Y and has Z articles as of Q". However, that particular sort of information would be best suited in some list article (or even metawiki material; in that case an encyclopaedia wouldn't really need to cover anything besides the fact that such language edition exists in first place). Besides, I've always liked the rough guideline of "if it shows up in en.wikipedia's main page, it's famous enough of a topic"; a Wikipedia edition with 217 articles has a very very long way to go to reach 25,000 articles... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:08, 2 July 2007 (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.