Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honduras Sign Language


 * 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 of the debate was Keep and expand, though the appropriate tag has already been applied. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Honduras Sign Language
This page is as good as empty. Jadriaen 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. The language should have its own page.  --Nlu (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Agree with Nlu.  -- Samir [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]] (the scope) धर्म 19:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep & expand, but this should be moved to LESHO when this AfD closes with a redirect from Honduras Sign Language. LESHO is the proper name for this variant of sign language .--Isotope23 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A question. On the list of sign languages many sign languages have red links, and they all should have their own page. Is the solution then to create almost empty pages like the one under consideration? I have checked all of them in the list, and this is the only one with no additional information, except stating that the Honduras Sign Language is signed in... Honduras. But if this article ends up being expanded soon, all the better of course (but again, does that mean that creating almost empty pages from the red links in the list of sign languages is a good strategy?). --Jadriaen 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm not at all a fan of creation of nearly empty (or obvious text restating the title in this case) articles simply to create a bluelink elsewhere. WP:AGF though that the originator's heart was in the right place... I wouldn't consider it best practice to create articles like this though.  If this survives AfD I'll add it to my "To Do" list and move it/try and make it into a real stub.  I'd do it right now, but I'm going to have to do a bit of research because I'm not really familiar with the topic.--Isotope23 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Isotope23, it's nice that you'd want to do that, but there are lots of sign languages that need a page. There is actually a project for sign languages and Deaf culture (WikiProject Deaf): they have an opinion of which articles need the most attention. As for me, I'd go for CSD:A3 speedy delete as outlined by Stifle below. (Question for Nlu: what is the additional information you speak of? Only the hds qualification? That's not much...) --Jadriaen 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a wikiproject for this then I'll let them clean it up if it gets kept... they are better informed than I. I still don't see any logical reason for deletion though.  The subject is WP:V, and there is obviously a community here that works on these sorts of articles.  The fact that the article is nearly blank is strong argument for keep and expand... not deletion. --Isotope23 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's go for keep and expand (and redirect to Lesho) because this article needs to be written in the end. But I still think the purpose would be better served with a red link than an empty article. Look at all the energy spent in this discussion... bummer. Anyway. --Jadriaen 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and between the 2 of us there is a servicable stub there now. I would only go with my move idea though if that doesn't go against naming conventions for sign language articles (if the WikiProject has any naming conventions).--Isotope23 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, don't move the article just yet then. But let's stub'it. --Jadriaen 10:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as per CSD:A3, only content is templates and rewording of the title. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think A3 fits; in this case, the template is filled in and provides some information beyond the title. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.