Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gan Wikipedia (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wikipedia

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gan Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completely non-notable Wiki encyclopedia site, the last AFD was keep per IAR policy. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. The previous AfD was riddled with incorrect keep opinions: we don't have articles for all other Wikipedias, many have no article at all and many of the other small ones are redirects to the list. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia#Removal of Articles about smaller Wikipedias lists a number of previous AfD's which ended in delete or redirect. Redirects for many of these articles were opposed and reverted though, leaving us with no option but AfD's or a RFC. There is no good reason to exclude Wikipedia versions from our guidelines, and most of these Wikipedias fail WP:N (those that don't of course can have a separate article). Fram (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they have no evidence of notability, yes, they should be deleted or (preferably) redirected. As yuo can see in the history of these articles, I have attempted a redirect, but was opposed. Another editor tried a prod, but was opposed as well. Fram (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, isn't continuing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia#Removal_of_Articles_about_smaller_Wikipedias a better mechanism for overall resolution then this AfD? It seems to me that this is creating a problem rather then fixing anything, especially since this is the second nomination and there's a continuing discussion going on elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't something like WP:SNOW cover this? Ω (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one discussed this any further after I replied there. A month later, I started an AfD for one of these articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Sámi Wikipedia), and only then did the discussion resume there. It looked as if people only wanted to revert the redirects, but were not interested in any discussion of it, leaving me (and other likeminded editors) with few options. I don't see how this is covered by WP:SNOW, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashubian Wikipedia (2nd nomination) ended in delete and redirect. Other options to deal with these articles en masse are welcome, but don't blame me for not tryiong redirection and discussion first, before starting an AfD or commenting in another one. Fram (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the rush is all about. If you give everyone a month or so to comment, it's simple enough to go back to these pages and address them then (there's a nice neat nav box and everything!). Who knows, maybe by then there will be enough content fleshed out on the pages to change your mind on deleting them... which, incidentally, is one reason why WP:ATD is written into the deletion policy. Besides, isn't waiting better then being accused of "kamakazie edits" and such? There are certainly good reasons to be quick about deleting things, within the general scheme of things, but I don't see any of them here.
PS.: For the record though, I would and do support redirect/merging the articles to List of Wikipedias, and since I opened my big mouth here I'll go over to the discussion and voice my support for merging/redirecting in that discussion as well. Ω (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect due to lack of sources about this website. Same as we'd do for any non-Wikipedia organization that had non-notable versions/chapters/editions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Chiliad22 is dead right. The notability of Wikipedia is not inherited by its various sub-projects, so ones with a lack of dedicated reliable sources don't need their own articles. (Of course I'm ready to be corrected if there is a load of coverage out there I haven't found.) Olaf Davis (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all Ohm, I don't know why you have such a problem with the AfD process, but it's a fine way to bring more attention to an issue that involves the destruction of articles. I mean, that's what it's here for. The other discussion has sat nearly stagnant for a week now. It's not like there is a lively debate over there that is being hijacked with this AfD. Gigs (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias, like many of the small Wikipedias in Template:Wikipedias. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with at least Redirect. I think we should respect the existance of the Gan Language Website in Wikipedia. Otherwise, we may ask whether we should delete articles related to other Chinese dialects such as Cantonese, Hakka and Minnan. Ricky@36 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gan_Wikipedia_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137869719"