Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saterland Frisian 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Saterland Frisian Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

All of the sources are self-ref'd, non-notable website.  MBisanz  talk 08:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy deletion candidate. Polarpanda (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep added: but see additional comment below: I de'prodded this one. Wikipedia itself is clearly notable, and the fact that many different language components of it exist is also notable.  As I wrote the other day in Articles for deletion/Czech Wikipedia (2 nomination), "I am not in favor of merging every article about every different language wikipedia into one article. because i think wikipedia itself is notable and should have a page on wikipedia, and subpage organization makes sense."  And unlike the Czech article at the time of nomination, at least this has some references even if they are internal.  Even if there are no other sources to be added, a fact I am not yet convinced of, I am hard pressed to see how the project is improved if this page is deleted.--Milowent (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * because we would not let anyone else use the logic "X is notable, therefore every sub-X is notable." Polarpanda (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * its used all the time, its dependent on how you define X, however.--Milowent (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is far less likely there will ever be external sources on this topic, if only because there are 12,000,000 speakers of the Czech language in your example and 2,000 speakers of Saterland Frisian in this case. Further, reliable, third-party sources are a core requirement of notability and of the project in general, we cannot exempt articles just because they are on topics we are partial to for having the same goals as our project.  MBisanz  talk 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My humble opinion as a frequent contributor to the Saterfrisian Wikipedia is, that an article on it is useful as soon as a user can obtain information from it, he won't get otherwise. Of course, there are many other ways to it, but I feel you should not block any possible way.--Pyt (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Digging into this more, I see there is some precedent I was not aware of that should be noted in this discussion. In the May-August 09 discussion here, the proper treatment of smaller language wikipedias was debated at some length. That discussion links to a slew of AfD discussions from earlier this year, where the close was to redirect to List of Wikipedias. Since I doubt consensus has changed in the last 4 months, and that consensus seems pretty strong, I suppose that should be the correct result here as well. At least having the redirect will prevent article recreation and avoid wasted efforts. I am going to leave my Keep vote as my personal position, but I fully accept that the outcome should be Redirect--Milowent (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the list. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  14:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect I concur with the redirect argument. The current article contains nothing of significance that isn't in the List of Wikipedias article. (I updated the size entry in the list.) If reliable sources write about the site, or other developments warrant more coverage that the list entry, the article can be created.--  SPhilbrick  T  16:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 20 December 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.