Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple English 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

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

This subject, while notable within the project, does not merit inclusion based on our notability requirements set out in WP:WEB. At best, it could be mentioned somewhere else, such as Wikipedia. لenna vecia  19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Wikipedias. I tried to expand this article a couple months ago, and there's really only one secondary source to speak of. Perhaps it would be better to merge a few sentences into English Wikipedia, but I think redirecting is a good option. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now per Rankiri's sources (not sure how he found them, but he did, and I'm now confident the site meets notability requirements). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to either List of Wikipedias or Wikipedia - definitely not worthy of a separate article.  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above comments. Seems like they said all I was gonna say.  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  19:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I apologise for doing this out of process originally. Based on the article's state and age, I didn't think there was much of a question. But I suppose there's also the issue of where to redirect it to - I had originally pointed it to English Wikipedia, thinking we could give it a sentence there. List of Wikipedias works too, if that's what others agree on. Recognizance (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: e.g. Bulgarian Wikipedia and Croatian Wikipedia have both their own articles here. Both articles have only sources related to the Wikimedia foundation. Should this articles become redirects, too, if Simple English Wikipedia becomes a redirect, shouldn't they? --Barras (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * reply See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those articles may deserve to be handled the same way this one is; or alternately maybe they shouldn't because sources exist for those articles that just have not been cited yet.  Either way, such discussion shouldn't really happen here. --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Jennavecia Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject seems to pass WP:GNG with ease.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/wikipedia.web20
 * Google Books
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=S7xi5jcSp6EC&pg=PA544&dq=%22simple+english+wikipedia%22


 * Google Scholar
 * http://sunschlichter0.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/persons/kochm/ecscw2007ws/paper-denbesten.pdf
 * http://www.ethiqa.com/hephaistos/simplewikiDenBestenDalle.pdf
 * http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2008/WS-08-15/WS08-15-008.pdf
 * http://www.sftw.umac.mo/~robertb/publications/WikiSym2008/18500125.pdf
 * http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.2354.pdf
 * "Keep it Simple: A Companion for Simple Wikipedia?", Industry & Innovation, Matthijs Den Besten; Jean-Michel Dalle, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 169-178 (abstract)
 * "One Encyclopedia Per Child (OEPC) in Simple English", Kennedy, I. (2006), In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp. 77-82) (abstract) — Rankiri (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not usable, but I rather like this one and the xckd cartoon it links. Artw (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is one of many Wikipedia pages here when it comes to them being covered on this site. This page is notable in the way that WikiCommons is notable. I find it absurd that people will target a page because it can't be expanded or doesn't seem notable. I know that this is unlikely to happen, but what would those who use that project think of this. This page helps to denote the notability of a project here, and it probably has encouraged many editors to the project. I really think that this page will probably end up being recreated in due time, once people realize their mistake. Also note that there is a template for each Wikipedia language project at the bottom of the page. I haven't checked out every link, but I feel that it's safe to assume that this means that there is one page for every project out there, as they are linked to the template. Just because we don't all edit this project, doesn't mean that it isn't important. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as some comments on the talk page for the article describe people critical of Simple English Wikipedia mistaking that page for a discussion of the project itself, you seem to be missing the point of this and trying to martyr the project. This is about whether the page meets notability guidelines and, if so, how best to present the information. In my opinion, this would be more appropriate within the context of a larger discussion about various editions and usability of Wikipedia. This would be far more useful than an independent perma-stub. The people who voted to redirect it to List of Wikipedias are more on the side of deleting the article outright, but no one is attacking Simple English Wikipedia project. Additionally, notability guidelines apply to all articles, so how much of a hypothetical boost its existence would give to a project is irrelevant in this case. Recognizance (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the people who opted for the redirect mostly agreed with لennavecia 's claims on non-notability. As most of you know, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a standalone article. Since new sources were added, I'd appreciate if you could look at the Google results and reevaluate your earlier conclusions. Thanks. — Rankiri (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did indeed look at them, and I appreciate your effort. But as Cnilep said below, I remain convinced this information would be better presented elsewhere. If a coherent, properly sourced article is written, I might change my mind - but for now my vote stands. Recognizance (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Struck thru prior vote; per sources provided by Rankiri above, this shows enough reliable source material is clearly availible to support an seperate article. Thanks for finding those sources.  Good catch.  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  02:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep easily enough sources for notability, regardless oif decisions about other WPs. DGG (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect: This site is not sufficiently notable for its own page. It deserves a brief paragraph in a broader article. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. I moved this to Simple English Wikipedia years ago and that's where it ought to have stayed. Angela. 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that was years ago. Since then, seWP has grown and has attracted attention from the media. Certainly, Simple English Wikipedia is not where it should stay. Even a place at the list of WPs would be acceptable. Regards, Pmlin  editor  07:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep per the sources identified by Rankiri which establish notability. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia's, specially those containing above 50,000 articles are generally notable. Also, there are several sources to establish notability.  Pmlin  editor  07:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to either Wikipedia or List of Wikipedias. I thank Rankiri for finding additional sources related to the topic, but note that most of those sources are not really on point. Most of the papers seem to be work in computer science using Simple English Wikipedia as a data set, or work in other fields mentioning SEWP in some non-essential way. Two exceptions are Besten and Dalle (2008) and the piece from The Guardian already cited on the page. I don't think this quite rises to the required level of notability. Cnilep (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, most of these sources make numerous scientific observations of SEWP and its content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. — Rankiri (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that using SE Wikipedia as a data set is pretty notable. Powers T 12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of things get used as data sources (see e.g. Linguistic Data Consortium). Some of these are notable in their own right, others are not. Cnilep (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, more than enough sources. Powers T 12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Definitely has received a lot of coverage in independent sources. --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable 'pedia with reliable sources and an original concept. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 21:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy keep - just silly. Artw (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No sources have been added. Just to clarify. Sources have been found, but the article still has a single independent source. Maybe the ARS could spend a little less time tagging everything and a little more time actually working on articles. Lara  19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rankiri's sources.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Upgrade that to Strong Keep per Artw's work and the previous AfD which included this article.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 22:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * comment - do we actually have any evidence that this has been 'inappropriately canvassed off-wiki' per the notice added by MZMcBride above? Actually should that not just be a regular comment anyway? Artw (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I removed the notice template since no evidence has been provided by MZMcBride. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (should be added earlier)
 * Canvassing was witnessed in IRC. Lara  03:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep About two years ago there's a AfD discussion for all individual languages' Wikipedia article, and the clear consensus then is keep. This edition of Wikipedia already has more than 50000 articles and there are several external sources about it. I see no reason to delete it just because there's an article about the same language (the two are much different, however). --98.154.26.247 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (should be added earlier)
 * Strong Keep through sources shown available by User:Rankiri and per the improvements by User:Artw that have addressed concerns over the topic meeting WP:GNG. Always nice to see an article improved during an AfD. Even though AfD is not intended to force WP:Cleanup, Kudos to all who have worked to improve the article and the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I stumbled on this discussion when I was linking to the article from another discussion but I also came to the article to find out what the parameters of the English used in the Simple English Wikipedia are.  This is information that would not appear in List of Wikipedias if this article was merged.  The information could appear at English Wikipedia if this article were merged there but that really is a different topic.  While these reasons alone might not be enough to warrant retention of the article, citations given by others above seem to suffice.  —   AjaxSmack   00:09, 18 July 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.