Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luba-Katanga language

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The result was Nomination withdrawn per WP:SNOWBALL. It's clear that consensus prefers a blue link with zero content to a red link with zero content. (I guess this means WP:CSD#A3 has been rejected by the community, too.) It's also clear that many users believe non-notability is the only criterion for deleting an article. —Angr 10:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luba-Katanga language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

PROD removed without any improvement to the "article" (and I use the term loosely); speedy tag removed for no discernible reason. There is no article here. There is no content at all other than an infobox with some internal links, and an external link. Technically speediable via A3, but I'd like people to have a chance to add information if any can be found. But if no one can be arsed to actually write at least a stub about this language (or if no verifiable information about it can be found beyond what Ethnologue has supplied for the infobox), there's no reason it shouldn't be a red link. —Angr 12:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ——Angr 12:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep seems to be a real language with an ISO639 code and has things wikilinked to it. RJFJR (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, it's a real language. I never said it wasn't. But we don't have an article on it. The blue link at the top of this page is completely without useful content. —Angr 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even as an empty shell with just an infobox, this would still be useful. A language is inherently notable. – iridescent 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wouldn't be "useful". An infobox is not an article. Notability is not the issue here, the nonexistence of an article is the issue here. There is no content on the page. —Angr 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A predicate nominative is not an article. This is a classic A3 speedy delete. I don't care how vast your box, if you don't have anything to say, then it's not a discussion of anything, and it's not an article. Gazettes are good for facts without context. Encyclopedias are contextualized discussions. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the predicate nominative is a new addition. At the time I tagged the article for deletion, it didn't even contain a complete sentence. In its current state, I'd no longer call it an A3 speedy, but it is certainly free of any meaningful content. Even calling it a stub is a gross exaggeration. —Angr 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Barely). Is this article any better than an obvious redlink? Marginally so. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Empty article but show that this is a language used in a certain place--Puttyschool (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Empty article" is exactly right, which is why it should be deleted, not kept. Wikipedia does not consist of contentless articles. —Angr 05:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's little to write about the language itself and I doubt it will someday evolve beyond a stub without involving the history of the [Luba Katanga people] - a missing article. We can think of a redirect or a merge once the latter is created. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
  • So what is the reason for keeping? —Angr 05:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real languages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the reason for nomination. Notability is not the issue here. The problem is not with the topic of the article but with the quality of the article: there is no content in it. —Angr 05:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A somewhat informative stub. There is not much content, sure, but it provides some information and context, which is generally good enough. I don't think having no article would be better. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.