Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old English 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 delete. Consensus is that this wikipedia is not notable and there are also very compelling policy reasons to delete the article. Mkativerata (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old English Wikipedia[edit]

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

fairly clearly fails WP:WEB; next, please. Ironholds (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the!? That's Wikipedia stuff!!! Strong keep, but let's see... Big top 06:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Old English Wikipedia is indeed a "trivial" thing according to such guidelines. I wrote it after finding multiple other articles about multiple other "trivial" (according to fore-mentioned definitions) Wikipedia language versions (Dutch Low Saxon, Zulu, Quechua, Simple English, etc.) I personally reckon it should stay... but, nevertheless, it doest't stand up well against such criteria. It has no sources because it would by necessity have to reference Wikipedia (like most other Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia that I've read...) (and I had the impression that Wikipedia articles referencing Wikipedia were unwelcome - per official policy?) Gott wisst (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Please link me to any Wikipedia versions with articles that contain no proper citations as this does, and I'll be happy to AfD them as well. "other stuff exists" isn't a valid reason to keep something. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it has not achieved independent verifiability, and if people want to use it it can try to claim a link from the front page. By the way, does anyone use the language? I know there are no native speakers, but is it spoken even as a second language? If not, then the wikipedia itself should not exist. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are a few second-language speakers out there who like to use the language (I am one); there are not so many as, shall we say, Latin (Latin Wikipedia=40,000+, OE Wikipedia=2,000+). Look up "template:user ang" - there are quite some who can - not so many who do (sadly) (if number of articles is anything to go by). Gott wisst (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the basic verifiability guidelines. Ryan Norton 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add link to List of Wikipedias its not on this list yet, and it should be. i checked in at complete list of wikipedias at wikimedia, and the cutoff for having wikipedia articles appears to be around 10000 articles, from obviously notable languages. Unless someone can find independent third party notability for this interesting exercise, it doesnt warrant an article yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect as per Mercurywoodrose. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2010 (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.