Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical Chinese 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 keep. Nandesuka (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Classical Chinese Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The Classical Chinese Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Classical Chinese Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.
I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.
A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
| Date AFD closed | Result | Wikipedia Links to AFD |
Visits per day [1] | Article count (official) [2] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-02-22 | Keep | List of article pages | n/a | n/a |
| 2007-10-09 | No consensus to delete | Kashubian | ??? | 1,600 |
| 2007-11-12 | Redirect | Kashubian 2nd nom | ??? | 1,600 |
| 2007-02-22 | Keep (part of the List of article pages AFD,above) | Scots | ??? | 2,200 |
| 2007-08-02 | Delete | Scots 2nd nom | ??? | 2,200 |
| 2008-03-07 | Redirect | Hawaiian | ??? | 322 |
| This AFD | This AFD | Classical Chinese | 31 | 2,000 |
- Keep I think careful consideration leads to the conclusion that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; redirecting seems more appropriate in cases of short articles with only statistics, but this has some nontrivial content. It actually has more content than many of the articles included in last year's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Also, the article on the French Wikipedia is translated from this article, so the authorship information shouldn't be deleted per license requirements as I understand them (although that obviously raises dilemmas...has this been discussed?). Rigadoun (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nominator fails to understand the "encyclo-" part of "encyclopedia" - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a description of a foreign language WP. It lacks external sources, but so do many other WP articles. It is a genuine subject for WP in a well-used language (or rather script), and should certainly be retained. I suspect that it will be difficult to find English language external sources on this, and ma not sure of the merits of using Chinese ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's odd to call a classical language a well-used language, though of course it was once, and the existence of the Wikipedia implies there are many interested in keeping it alive). I did look for sources in (modern) Chinese, and found numerous blogs and forums, but couldn't find any (which doesn't mean they don't exist). Rigadoun (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (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.