Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inuktitut Wikipedia
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 keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inuktitut Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable website; it does not appear to meet WP:WEB to me. Tizio 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. On one hand, it is a sanctioned version of wikipedia. On the other hand, we do not have information for EVERY single language pages. Proposal: Post link in Wikipedia info page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.58.101.27 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Assuming this is real, it's a part of Wikipedia, and see previous discussion on this subject. While most of that discussion did focus on the poor choice of a mass nomination, there is a strong support for keeping them in general. That said, the article itself needs some cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Assuming this is real": that's exactly the point! Is there any source independent from the subject which can be used as a reference for this article? Tizio 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. Needs some fixing up. Mr. Manticore has it, there's a precedent for general concensus for keeping other Wikipedia sites. That said, I wonder now if there's one written in Klingon.... --Dennisthe2 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect unless sources towards WP:WEB can be found. Now is a good a time as any to try to reduce the level of bias... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz (third nomination) for an article that had more sources than this one and was deleted, but it was about a website/company we didn't like. --W.marsh 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Prior AfD aside, Wikipedias must be weighed against the same standard as any other site. To treat them differently simply because they're run by the same foundation that runs our own is an unacceptable conflict of interest. That said, its entirely possible that some editions of Wikipedia meet those requirements, but this one doesn't seem to.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm treating them with the standard that since Wikipedia has an article, and since foreign language editions are a notable subset of Wikipedia as a whole, describing each of them is completely reasonable. I'd be comfortable with this page having a one or two-line summary on a collected page, even a paragraph, but I also have no objection to it being on its own. And just so you know, WP:WEB is a rough guideline, not a fixed standard. FrozenPurpleCube 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB is based on WP:N and WP:A/WP:V, so the "Well we don't have to follow it when we don't want" argument isn't very strong. --W.marsh 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It also says This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. There's also WP:BURO to consider. So instead of making your arguments based on some rather imperfect rules, I would suggest considering the situation itself. It's important not to become rules-blind. FrozenPurpleCube 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is the situation, that we should include an article because it's about Wikipedia, and we like Wikipedia? That's bias... and what I try to avoid. --W.marsh 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about liking Wikipedia or this foreign language version. Wikipedia is itself notable (if you are arguing that, go run a news search), this is part of Wikipedia. All foreign language Wikipedias are part of Wikipedia. Therefore, I feel it's important to document them in covering Wikipedia. You might convince me a single page covering all (or even just the smaller languages) is a better way to present the information, but you aren't going to convince me not to cover some just because they're smaller. That would be biased. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So any portion of a notable site is inherently notable? That just doesn't make sense. There's simply no reason for all 250 Wikipedias need there own article. I'm not disputing Wikipedia itself is notable, that's pretty obvious, but I fail to see how that notability automatically extends itself to every edition of Wikipedia. That's akin, in my opinion at least, to saying that we ought to have an article on Cherry Pop-Tarts because Pop-Tarts are notable.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course... but these things always come back to someone wanting to bend the rules and logic so we can have another article about Wikipedia. --W.marsh 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason not to have an article on Cherry Pop-tarts, though I can't imagine what content one could provide to have such an article. However, if such an article could be developed to be something like Coca-Cola Cherry or Crystal Pepsi, that would be fine with me. Those I would say are closer examples to what we're talking about here. I see how each language Wikipedia is produced in is a distinct and separate content, that warrants some degree of coverage. I could accept a single page, but that is not what's being proposed here, is it? If you do want to do that, feel free to bring it up on a project page or the Village pump. However, the deletion of an article without what I consider a replacement for providing the same information is not the way to do that. And note, I'm not saying any portion of a notable site is inherently notable. I am saying that given the nature of Wikipedia, the foreign language versions of it are notable enough they should be covered. This is because they represent the effort of a language's speakers to develop a knowledge presence on the internet. FrozenPurpleCube 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And no, I have zero fondness for having another article on Wikipedia about Wikipedia. I've never created any of these articles, and if I've edited them, it's to fix typos and other minor errors. So please don't accuse me of vanity, thank you. FrozenPurpleCube 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So any portion of a notable site is inherently notable? That just doesn't make sense. There's simply no reason for all 250 Wikipedias need there own article. I'm not disputing Wikipedia itself is notable, that's pretty obvious, but I fail to see how that notability automatically extends itself to every edition of Wikipedia. That's akin, in my opinion at least, to saying that we ought to have an article on Cherry Pop-Tarts because Pop-Tarts are notable.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about liking Wikipedia or this foreign language version. Wikipedia is itself notable (if you are arguing that, go run a news search), this is part of Wikipedia. All foreign language Wikipedias are part of Wikipedia. Therefore, I feel it's important to document them in covering Wikipedia. You might convince me a single page covering all (or even just the smaller languages) is a better way to present the information, but you aren't going to convince me not to cover some just because they're smaller. That would be biased. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is the situation, that we should include an article because it's about Wikipedia, and we like Wikipedia? That's bias... and what I try to avoid. --W.marsh 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It also says This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. There's also WP:BURO to consider. So instead of making your arguments based on some rather imperfect rules, I would suggest considering the situation itself. It's important not to become rules-blind. FrozenPurpleCube 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB is based on WP:N and WP:A/WP:V, so the "Well we don't have to follow it when we don't want" argument isn't very strong. --W.marsh 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To use the correct analogy, this is like wanting to have an article on every sub-forum, injoke, business venture, cliche and so on from Fark.com because we agree that the top level website is notable. When in fact, almost all of that stuff just gets merged without any objection back to the main article. It's really when it's only when it's related to Wikipedia that people are dead opposed to a redirect. --W.marsh 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. First, you are obviously unaware that I am not opposed to some kind of merged article. Second, not every section of Wikipedia is being proposed as an article, the only issue is the foreign language versions. Not the Village Pump, not the Sandbox. If you can come up with some website with a comparable situation, that might make for a good analogy. Fark.com, AFAIK, isn't it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say you were dead opposed to a redirect, but I am certain that if I redirected this article, someone would revert me. --W.marsh 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be your belief, perhaps it's even true. So what? Perhaps that would be an opportunity to work towards consensus with other editors. Maybe you could try producing a page combining the various languages. I don't think, however, the continued AfDs are a solution. FrozenPurpleCube 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say you were dead opposed to a redirect, but I am certain that if I redirected this article, someone would revert me. --W.marsh 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. First, you are obviously unaware that I am not opposed to some kind of merged article. Second, not every section of Wikipedia is being proposed as an article, the only issue is the foreign language versions. Not the Village Pump, not the Sandbox. If you can come up with some website with a comparable situation, that might make for a good analogy. Fark.com, AFAIK, isn't it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm treating them with the standard that since Wikipedia has an article, and since foreign language editions are a notable subset of Wikipedia as a whole, describing each of them is completely reasonable. I'd be comfortable with this page having a one or two-line summary on a collected page, even a paragraph, but I also have no objection to it being on its own. And just so you know, WP:WEB is a rough guideline, not a fixed standard. FrozenPurpleCube 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are unique features of this worth description, that might not be otherwise obvious to an English speaker. Tho I agree that the MyWikiBiz AfDs had an absurd result, the solution is not to remove other articles about WP as well. DGG 05:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per FrozenPurpleCube.Biophys 06:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep wikipedia language editions are notable, in worst case merge into an "Indiginous American Language Wikipedias" combined article combing say cherokee, cree, nehiyaw, nahuatl, or whatever, and and if a certain edition grows, likely quechua or nahuatl they can splinter off or be split into indignous north american and south american if it gets too long, i do fear that it would be dificult to have an interwiki box for every of a dozen language editions however and they do need to be there, so combos are just a terrible idea i must say.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Each and every one of the Wikipedia branches are notable, and if there isn't enough reliable third party information about one of them we should find a home to merge it to. RFerreira 05:50, 11 April 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.