Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal Bhasa 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia; the article doesn't include any third-party sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact asserted in the article, that there are 70,000 articles in Nepal Bhasa language could be challenged, but has not been challenged. It's a new article, appropriately tagged for addition of sources. Note, it seems to have been moved from Newar Wikipedia; perhaps Newar is another name for the language and perhaps coverage could be under that name, too. I have to believe that this is notable, and that there is coverage in Nepal and elsewhere, in Nepal Bhasa language, in Newar, and in other languages, of this Wikipedia. Let it develop. (Similar to my !vote in AFD about Piedmontese Wikipedia). --do ncr am 23:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, it is the same illogical, non policy-based argument you have used in the other nomination. I will reply with the same question, can you prove that the article meets WP:GNG or can you not? That is the only question worth asking, the number of articles is not relevant to the deletion discussion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piedmontese Wikipedia, which was started at the same time, was closed Keep. A participant commented that there are Wikipedia articles on other language Wikipedias, and doesn't see why this one should differ. I agree. --do ncr am 21:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it differ? Because it's not notable, and your failure to provide any supporting sources to justify your keep !vote even after two weeks further proves it. Your vote should be discounted as it has absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a non-notable wiki (see [1], for precedent). ansh666 04:52, 26 March 2014 (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.