Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neapolitan 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   redirect to List of Wikipedias. Note: It is not my recollection, nor have I been able to find evidence of, a precedent for inherent notability of individual-language Wikipedias. j⚛e deckertalk 15:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Neapolitan Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article just states the notability of the language itself and doesnt state anything about how this edition of Wikipedia itself TheChampionMan1234 11:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed that. Maybe it could remain now. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's usual for Wikimedia Foundation projects such as other-language wikipedias to have articles on en.wiki, because it's the WMF that pays the bills. However, in the event that this AfD concludes this Wiki shouldn't have its own article, then the outcome should not be "delete". It should be "redirect to list of Wikipedias".— S Marshall T/C 12:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with S Marshall's rationale for inclusion; WMF pays the bills, but the Wikipedia community provides the content, and the community's opinion requiring independent reliable sources to establish notability of web content seems clear in Notability (web) that "no web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is." "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable." Agyle (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, we have a guideline. This is Wikipedia, we have guidelines for everything.  It's not necessary to apply the guidelines in every single case indiscriminately.  But if we do decide we're applying the guidelines to this case, then we should certainly apply WP:BEFORE: If there's any reasonable alternative to deletion, then the alternative is preferred.  In this case redirection is a realistic alternative, and I've even suggested the target.— S Marshall  T/C 23:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I added "or redirect" to my vote; I don't see much benefit to it, but don't oppose it. Wikipedia napulitana might also be a candidate for redirection. Agyle (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect unless more independent reliable sources are identified to establish notability. I found none, except this one already listed in the Wikipedia article's "External links" section. I would think other independent reliable source (RS) articles exist, probably in Italian or Neapolitan, and I'd switch to Keep if a couple similarly detailed independent reliable sources are identified. Agyle (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 00:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Whilst I kind of believe there should be articles on every single Wiki, I also believe it's pointless having so many articles on so many non notable ones, Anyway Delete as per above no evidence of notability. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  05:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NWEB/WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited just because it's a Wikimedia project (and it's certainly not ok to keep something because of an assumed conflict of interest on the part of Wikimedia). It's true that many Wikipedias have articles, but that's because Wikipedia tends to receive coverage in reliable secondary sources (or because they haven't been AfDed yet). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:40, 8 June 2014 (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.