Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quechua 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 delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quechua Wikipedia

This article is a substub, and google finds no references in third-party reliable sources rendering it unverifiable and incapable of fulfilling the primary criterion for website notability. I have no malicious intent in targeting this Wikipedia specifically, it's just that the last bulk nomination turned out rather badly. That said, experience tells me the first words out the gate will be "you just hate indigenous populations" or some such. Deranged bulbasaur 05:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this falls under WP:CSD A7, but I brought it here on the basis of controversiality. Deranged bulbasaur 05:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of "significant coverage by independent media" Sources to establish notability would have to come from sources not affiliated with the wikiprojects :) Corpx 05:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the lack of anything that the article has to say about its subject. Articles on specific Wikimedia projects (German Wikipedia, for example) are doable, but this article tells me absolutely nothing that I couldn't have inferred from the title. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content and with no outside wikimedia sources no prospect of any verifiable article. Davewild 07:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You just hate indigenous populations, Deranged bulbasaur. That, and the project itself is just too minor to be included - I can see reason for including articles on Wikipedias with more than 10k articles (there are a lot of them), but this one and many others are just far too minor to require their own article, especially when the best that can be said about them is "this project exists," for the most part, which is what this substub basically does. Fails WP:N - RPIRED 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quecha is an official language in two countries, spoken by 10 million people. If there are sources, they are likely to be in Spanish, and the spellings, even of "Quecha"("Runa Simi") or "Wikipedia" ("Wikipidiya") may vary from the English ones, meaning that a failure to find published references is not evidence there are none. I tried a Google search for non-blog and non-Wikipedia sources and came up short, but I am not convinced my search was a complete one for the reasons cited. The Quecha Wikipedia according to Wikimedia [1] is number 108 of all the various Wikipedias out of 253 total, with 2640 articles, 30,144 edits, and 263 users. Perusal of random articles indicates the articles are not all stubs, so the project has promise as a resource for the Quecha speaking population. The present article is practically contentless, with less info than I presented in this comment. If deleted now, it could certainly be re-created when multiple published sources (newspapers, academic journals) in the countries it serves have had substantial coverage of it. I think more of it than of some of the lesser Wikis which have editors who don't speak the language and are just editors or admins for a hobby, and who don't/can't create articles in the language, and which really don't have meaningful articles. Edison 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an A1 speedy candidate, no meaningful content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Stub & Keep - there are others like it for example, French Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia --Chicaneo 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but in this case, the articles you're trying to compare are nothing alike anyway. Deranged bulbasaur 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it is indeed comparable to Kashubian Wikipedia and Cherokee Wikipedia. -- PhJ 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comparable in that those articles should also probably be merged to List of Wikipedias, perhaps? Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ???All three articles are already on that list. --Chicaneo 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What I'm getting at is that those articles contain nothing beyond a few simple statistics (name, date created, number of articles, and rank) which could be made part of a table in List of Wikipedias. The same is probably true of a number of the other articles on minor Wikipedias. There's no reason to write an article to house some statistics when gathering those statistics into a single table will give a more useful and more maintainable result. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Wikipedia. 132.205.44.5 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after expansion. To do so will probably require knowing the language.DGG (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably already covered in other articles (and if not, this article doesn't have much information that could not be covered there); My own gut feeling on these has been "if it's listed on on our main page it's notable". For Wikipedias the size is often the requirement for critical mass of users. Wikipedias with just a couple of thousand of articles are still very minor. Obviously, I'm not opposed to reinstating the article once there's plenty of evidence that people did notice. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ack Chicaneo. -- PhJ 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some sort of collective article for wikipedias that aren't individually notable, as the concept of a wikipedia in general is certainly notable. SamBC 09:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like List of Wikipedias? Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias for now, recreate if it becomes notable Giggy _U^CP 04:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stub articles on minor Wikipedias seem like a fine and appropriate idea to me. As a Wikipedia, I think is is notable on Wikipedia, and I hope they all get expanded. This article was only created this month, and therefore hasn't had much time to expand from a stub. I would also favor expanding the table on List of Wikipedias to include a few more more statistics, especially number of articles.--Absurdist 07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Wikipedias, or alternatively create a new article on Native American language Wikipedias, Wikipedias in minority languages or Wikipedias in indigenous languages and move all the content of these (and similar) articles there, with appropraite redirects. DHowell 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously Bulba is a racist and I suspect he is harboring nazi war criminals; however our complicit participation in this endeavor will force his true self into the open; ve have ze vays of making him talk....on a more serious note, a delete is not permanent and the topic can return should reputable sources be found; however, for now there is not enough here for an article. Oh, and Bulba, ze dark rooum is vaiting for you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per my arguments in previous AFDs like this. --W.marsh 14:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect; I think that the fact that is the biggest wikipedia in a Native American Language (and also the Quechua language is the third language in south america), is a good argument to keep the stub for some months and see after that check if it was expanded or not. Also see this article Nahuatl Wikipedia, it has less info and nobody propose its deletion (until now). --Kanon6917 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seriously considering tagging that as {{db-empty}}, as there's absolutely nothing there besides an obvious definition and an external link. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:49, 17 July 2007 (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.