Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catahya
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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catahya[edit]
Delete this page because: the artickle won't be kept up to date and is about a Swedish NGO, for which the Swedish article will suffice. Also it won't be written in a manner that correctly explains Catahya, when written in English. Wille Raab 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on above: "The foreign-language article is enough" is exactly the wrong reason to delete this. The whole point of having Wikipedias in every language imaginable, even constructed and fictional ones, is to make information and knowledge available to everyone. I don't mean to sound like an overbearing American or anything, but frankly how many people speak Swedish compared to English? If the subject of the article is notable (and I am not totally convinced that it is for the English-speaking community). How can you be sure it won't be kept up to date? And how can you be so sure it can't be written well in English, especially given that the English version is longer than the Swedish version? Daniel Case 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
::Addendum to above: My position should be taken as Abstain because while the nominator gave reasons that, as I explained, are not good reasons for deletion, it does not necessarily follow that it should be kept as a demonstration of notability has not been made. Daniel Case 20:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies on above comment: maybe you are right in that it should not be deleted. However, the point in deleting it is that it isn't a good and valid English explanation on the subject; and the reasons that I'm sure it won't be kept up to date is is 1) that it isn't now, even 2) that certain members of the NGO's board have told me they are having trouble with the article not being correct nor updated as it should, when it should. However, the main reason would be that it simply isn't of that much interest for and English-speaking community, as You say. That was my intention, even though I didn't realize how it would be lacking on this discussion page (haven't suggested deletions before... :) ). Don't know if that 'straightens out some questionmarks', it's how I see it at least. :) Wille Raab 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If multiple members of the NGO's board found inaccuracies, they could have fixed them :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 06:25Z
- OK, that clarification tips it for me. Weak delete. Daniel Case 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: Auto-translated version of sole comment on Swedish article's Talk page ("Had that community encyclopaedia interest? Shaft and Krigsforum had ju erased olds") suggests there's a question about it being encyclopedic over there, too. Yet the article has been there for a year as well. Still no conclusive evidence either way for me. Daniel Case 20:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies on above comment: maybe you are right in that it should not be deleted. However, the point in deleting it is that it isn't a good and valid English explanation on the subject; and the reasons that I'm sure it won't be kept up to date is is 1) that it isn't now, even 2) that certain members of the NGO's board have told me they are having trouble with the article not being correct nor updated as it should, when it should. However, the main reason would be that it simply isn't of that much interest for and English-speaking community, as You say. That was my intention, even though I didn't realize how it would be lacking on this discussion page (haven't suggested deletions before... :) ). Don't know if that 'straightens out some questionmarks', it's how I see it at least. :) Wille Raab 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable role-playing game forum. Ruby 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep partly to combat systematic bias. Jcuk 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, to combat systemic bias and because no legit reason for deletion has been given. Kappa
- Keep. I see no good reason to delete this well written and informative article, and the reason advanced by the nominator doesn't make sense to me. If the article needs to be cleaned up then someone with Swedish can undertake the task--we have a Swedish portal for that purpose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:14, 28 January 2006 (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.