Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukaan 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 SNOW keep. NAC. JulesH (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ukaan language

No references Chzz ► 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be stupid. ~~If you want refs, add them.~~ What am I talking about? It has references. kwami (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— [1][2] and the SIL link in the article. Enough evidence that the language exists. —SV 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, don't be ridiculous, if you simply deleted all unref'd pages, most of wikipedia would fall over. Put a refs needed tag there by all means but deleting it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Really, there are other pages that need policing more that the language stubs. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. I've referenced it with SV's links. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Referenced well enough to show the language exists, which for small African languages is often the best we can hope for. Oh, and nominating an article for deletion 3 minutes after its creation - by a well-established Wikipedian and administrator, no less - is generally considered uncool. —An gr 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the deletion rationale is obviously invalid. Why are we having this conversation? Aleta ^Sing 04:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

« Why ? » ? Because of human Stupidity. This non-Discussion is CLOSED. --Budelberger (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (

).[reply]

Absolutely Keep - I don't understand the rationale for deleting this stub. Every language deserves its own stub at least. And if a language is cited in Ethnologue and has an ISO 639-3 designation it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia--whether we know a lot about it or not. If it is deleted from ISO 639-3 and Ethnologue, then we can delete it. Until then it exists and should be listed in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2009 (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.