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

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cree Wikipedia[edit]

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

Fails GNG as shown by this and this. Nothing has improved since the last AfD, which should of at least been closed as 'no consensus'. Redirect to List of Wikipedias. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But then why have you not tried first to simply place a merge tag on the article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only the nominator, User:Graham11, argued for deletion at the earlier AfD. Currently, it seems that not even the nominator is arguing for deletion; J947 seems to recommend a redirect. FWIW, Graham11 argued, "I can't find any independent references to the website's existence." There are currently two independent sources cited (obviously the 5 Wikimedia references don't count), and there is at least mention of the project in a third reliable source, as I mentioned at AfD last year. I'm not seeing any reason to overturn the earlier keep decision. Cnilep (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG. Dean Esmay (talk)
~~Keep~~ -- there's enough critical commentary to justify keeping this article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias where it is already covered. It's a puzzle to me why the previous nomination was closed as keep. Looking at the current sources I see only brief mentions in the independent coverage. If I've missed something significant please let me know where it is. There is some useful discussion here regarding redirecting other Wikipedia without independent sources to the list. While this one has some independent coverage it doesn't include significant, detailed coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias. (I'm also a bit puzzled by the last closure, since it was done so by a non-admin user, with no indication that it was a non-admin close. That's against policy, surely.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Wikipedias on second thoughts; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2017 (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.