Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Punjabi Wikipedia

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. Because redirects are cheap. Shimeru (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western Punjabi Wikipedia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails our notability guidelines; there is no third-party coverage Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Assuming there is little or no outside coverage, but that the material in the article itself is verifiable via the sister wikipedia, I think we should have articles on such wikipedias despite not complying with all factors of WP:GNG. I have said this before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saterland Frisian Wikipedia (see also [1]), where I concede that these AfDs of smaller wikis almost always end in a redirect. I'd like to see them kept and hope consensus changes at some point.--Milowent (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you think articles shouldn't have to pass WP:GNG? You appreciate arguments should be within policy, not WP:FUCK POLICY. Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rowr, tiger! To be clear, I am not saying that generally all articles shouldn't have to meet WP:GNG. WP:GNG says "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." WP:N notes, like any guidelines, that "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In my opinion, its within the bounds of common sense to support having separate articles on individual wikipedias, instead of, say, trying to cover them all in one huge omnibus article (or not cover them at all). (Remember, WP:GNG says when it cannot be met, one option is to "consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context"; AfD is not the only or preferred avenue.) If you look at the concerns driving the notability guideline, the verifiability concern is reduced here because sister wikipedias should be able to provide verifiable evidence, such as when it was founded and when article milestones were met, and "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" (WP:V). So, to be clear, my !vote is far from a WP:FUCK POLICY WP:ILIKEIT position but is submitted in respect of policy (indeed, I provided you all the ammunition you need to support your nom in the links to my !vote)--Milowent (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially, the GNG doesn't apply, because it's based on WP:V, and the article data is verifiable? WP:V provides that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" - so the policy you're referencing to remove the need for reliable sources itself requires reliable sources. We cannot treat things differently because they are a WP project, and so we think the stats and the like can be trusted. The same would apply for any wiki run using MediaWiki. Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my observation is that wikipedia treats different things differently every day, and when some editor says something "cannot" be done, someone else at the same exact time is doing that exact thing. E.g., we have 83 articles for episodes of Ugly Betty, but others say these individual articles should not exist. If you want to couch my opinion within the strict confines of policy, you can say my position is that sister wikipedias are different and should be treated as an "occasional exception" to WP:GNG instead of having their coverage merged into some larger article or deleted entirely. The current practice, I concede, is to redirect to List of Wikipedias. But is there some portion of the Western Punjabi Wikipedia article that concerns you or which you believe harms the project?--Milowent (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about including ugly betty episodes; this is "one rule for us, and one rule for everyone else". And yes, there is something that concerns me; we don't, by policy, have any verifiable information there. And setting the precedent that "it's okay to include WP projects regardless of their notability" reeks of nepotism. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What information is wrong?--Milowent (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

verifiability, not truth, honey :P. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article represents W. Punjabi Wikipedia that is normalised a few months ago. I have added more information and I think with the growth of that wikipedia the article will also grow. We cant expect a wikipedia and an article in very good form in short time. Therefore there is no need of deletion of it.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is "we can't expect it to be notable, therefore we shouldn't delete it"? Anyone else spot the flaw there? I don't know about the Western Punjabi Wikipedia, but over here we have strict guidelines on what is and is not notable. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias unless sources can be located. Cnilep (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The existence of a Western Punjabi Wikipedia is not worth including in the Punjabi article (bar the usual template), let alone warrant its own. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid, the reasons of its deletion are unconvincing.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? It doesn't fulfil our notability guidelines. You have provided no evidence to show that it does. There is no evidence that it does. Explain how this is unconvincing. Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have updated List of Wikipedias to include both Eastern Punjabi and Western Punjabi projects. The two use different writing systems. Cnilep (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:GNG, which IMAO is fairly non-negotiable. --N Y Kevin @857, i.e. 19:33, 12 April 2010 (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.