Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashubian Wikipedia (2nd nomination)
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 As nothing was sourced to be mergable, the result was delete and redirect. GRBerry 02:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kashubian Wikipedia
This article is about an edition of Wikipedia, which, according to meta:List of Wikipedias, is only the 137th largest language edition of Wikipedia in terms of number of articles. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Kashubian Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB. For example, the article about Scots Wikipedia was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots Wikipedia (2nd nomination), and the Scots Wikipedia is larger than the Kashubian Wikipedia by number of articles and number of editors. Therefore, I recommend a delete. And, just for clarity, this discussion is about whether the article on the English Wikipedia about the Kashubian Wikipedia should be deleted. The Kashubian Wikipedia will continue to exist as an encyclopedia of its own regardless. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure your comparison to Scots Wikipedia is entirely valid. Are number of articles in an encyclopedia directly proportional to that encyclopedia's notability? βDisavian (talk/contribs) 05:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's possible that a Wikipedia edition could be deemed notable despite having fewer articles than another edition which had previously been deemed non-notable. But so far I have not found evidence that the Kashubian Wikipedia has achieved that distinction. The comparison to Scots Wikipedia is mostly intended to show that foreign language editions of Wikipedia can be, and have been, deleted via WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, I suppose. Now that I think about it, one could refer to the List of Wikipedias to see which ones have articles and which ones don't. βDisavian (talk/contribs) 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's possible that a Wikipedia edition could be deemed notable despite having fewer articles than another edition which had previously been deemed non-notable. But so far I have not found evidence that the Kashubian Wikipedia has achieved that distinction. The comparison to Scots Wikipedia is mostly intended to show that foreign language editions of Wikipedia can be, and have been, deleted via WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I really don't see anything wrong with this. jj137 (Talk) 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Putting aside arguments from article-counting, it's pretty clear that there's nothing in this article which can't be stated more concisely in the table. Once there's something more substantial to say - news coverage, for instance - the article can be recreated. Zetawoof(ΞΆ) 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia 132.205.99.122 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to List of Wikipedias per lack of any evidence of independent notability. Precedent has established that foreign language Wikipedias are not inherently notable. Terraxos 03:55, 10 November 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.
