Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portuguese 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. Flowerparty ☀ 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Noisalt (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course Portuguese-language newspapers and magazines have written articles about the Portuguese Wikipedia. Naturally, the coverage of Portuguese Wikipedia is primarily in the Portuguese language. Take a look at these articles. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They appear to have written articles about Wikipedia, not about the Portuguese Wikipedia. Searching for Wikipédia em português yields no results. —Noisalt (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That search is only for the last month. Try hitting "all dates" to do a Google News archive search for "Wikipédia lusófona" OR "Wikipédia em português". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please see the earlier discussion at Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was nearly unanimous in that debate that some Wikipedias are notable and some are not. This one does not appear to be. —Noisalt (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per this discussion indicating that there is not sufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to List of Wikipedias Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. My knowledge of Portuguese is pretty rudimentary, so please don't start asking me to edit the articles based on these sources, but I can see that there is easily enough coverage in reliable sources found by Google Scholar and news archive searches for '"Wikipédia lusófona" OR "Wikipédia em português"'. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That establishes that the article's been mentioned in a lot of sources. That's a far cry from "non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources" since we don't know which are non-trivial, which are reliable, which are independent, and on top of that, which address the Portuguese Wikipedia in a distinct way from Wikipedia as a whole. —Noisalt (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Astonishing nomination, just because we cannot read Portugese (language ranked 6th in world by number of native speakers). What about Spanish Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia or Hungarian Wikipedia. Where do we stop? Obrigado. Polargeo (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Portugese is one of the main international wikipedias. Of the 262 different language wikipedias it ranked 7th for volume of traffic see Wikipedia. So if some are notable and some aren't then you can bet this is definitely one of the notable ones. Delete it and it will just come straight back. Argument to delete is a bit snowball. Polargeo (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: COI: I am brazilian and a wiki.pt's editor. I think this article has plenty of original research, that should certanly be removed if the article is kept. Lusophonic Wikipedia was covered a little bit by newspaper and magazines, as you can see here (not all articles refer to wiki.pt) and by academic works as you can see here. Lechatjaune (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks promising. —Noisalt (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the practical grounds that we can cover them better than anywhere else, and it's good to have a satisfactory English description. I do recognize the problems, but as a possible solution to all of these, it might perhaps be possible to move them to WP space. DGG (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's "it's useful", not "it's notable". —Noisalt (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the coverage identified by Phil Bridger which does look to be good enough to establish notability. Would be good if editors who do speak Portuguese could use those sources to rewrite the article which certainly needs a lot of work but that is not a reason to delete. Davewild (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2009 (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.