Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundanese Wikipedia
Source: 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 to List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sundanese Wikipedia
- Sundanese Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all. (Contested PROD). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, we need to document our own history. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Wikipedias. It's not notable but should not be outright deleted. Jguy TalkDone 17:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Other, smaller versions of Wikipedia (such as the Yiddish Wikipedia) have their own articles. The Sundanese Wikipedia would be a strange exception. Chri$topher 18:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason - also, this is SuNdanese, not Sudanese. Ansh666 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected the title issue, but I do feel as though this is still a legitimate point. There are multiple versions of Wikipedia with fewer articles than the Sundanese Wikipedia which have had articles on Wikipedia, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are legitimate under certain circumstances. For example "in consideration of precedent and consistency...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into...levels of notability...and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia". In this circumstance, because different versions of Wikipedia are unlikely to have notability as different versions of Wikipedia (language versions of Wikipedia are rarely discussed as such), it's important to look at precedent. The precedent seems to be such that deleting that article for the Sundanese Wikipedia would make it the exception to the general rule of keeping similar articles. Chri$topher 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the articles with lower page counts (e.g. Silesian Wikipedia or Yiddish Wikipedia) have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and therefore meet notability requirements, unlike the 4 articles currently at AfD. I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid in some cases, but not this one. Ansh666 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. I can see that, now. I was previously unaware that other articles on Wikipedias were being proposed for deletion. I'll change my opinion to redirect, then, unless someone can find sources to declare the Sundanese Wikipedia as notable. Chri$topher 03:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the articles with lower page counts (e.g. Silesian Wikipedia or Yiddish Wikipedia) have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and therefore meet notability requirements, unlike the 4 articles currently at AfD. I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid in some cases, but not this one. Ansh666 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected the title issue, but I do feel as though this is still a legitimate point. There are multiple versions of Wikipedia with fewer articles than the Sundanese Wikipedia which have had articles on Wikipedia, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are legitimate under certain circumstances. For example "in consideration of precedent and consistency...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into...levels of notability...and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia". In this circumstance, because different versions of Wikipedia are unlikely to have notability as different versions of Wikipedia (language versions of Wikipedia are rarely discussed as such), it's important to look at precedent. The precedent seems to be such that deleting that article for the Sundanese Wikipedia would make it the exception to the general rule of keeping similar articles. Chri$topher 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason - also, this is SuNdanese, not Sudanese. Ansh666 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Jguy. Ansh666 01:50, 20 June 2013 (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.