Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volapük 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Volapük Wikipedia

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

Contested prod. Version of Wikipedia for a language (Volapük) apparently spoken by around 20-30 people worldwide. No indiction in the article of this Wiki's notability, other than the fact that it appears to be made up almost exclusively of bot-generated stubs. The six references used are all from various Wikipedia or Wikimedia pages. Searching on Google for possible replacement sources yields results ranging from pages on various language Wikipedias about Volapük, mirrors of the same, pages that make mention of both Wikipedia and Volapük (difficult to see the wood for the trees, so I could have missed something somewhere), and blogs, but there's nothing I can find on Volapük Wikipedia itself to demonstrate that this apparent one-man project is notable.  Mi re ma re  22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If you check out the Volapuk saga on Wikipedia, this article is actually relevant. The whole Volapuk arena is weird, but it snuck in under the radar some time ago and now it exists. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Quartermaster, vo.wp existance has provoked several internal discussions so this article is useful. --MarsRover (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Every Wikipedia has its own article, so no reason to single this one out for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all of them do. See below for further details. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and any internal drama there are no reliable 3rd party sources available for the subject of the article. Although, if we apply WP:IAR than it could probably be kept. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Volapuk Wikipedia is a big wikipedia, so there must be an article about it, I think. -- Wisconsus   TALK | things  12:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a "big wikipedia" is not criteria for inclusion according to WP:WEB -- there needs to be non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If I might reply to those who have !voted keep above, whether a subject is "important" to Wikipedia, or has been discussed internally at Wikipedia, is irrelevant to the existence of this article and is in no way a reason to keep it. Also, not quite every Wikipedia has its own article, as the red links on the relevant template indicate, but again this is irrelevant to the discussion of this article. Notability requirements aren't there to make sure something is important enough for inclusion, but to ensure that there are sufficient sources to make a verifiable, NPOV article with no original research. Please base your arguments on WP's policies and guidelines rather than personal preference.  Mi re ma re  14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It doesn't violate any policies or guidelines. Its existence is verifiable and nothing I can see in the article constitutes original research as that term is actually defined in the relevant policy. What we are here to discuss is its notability, which is subjective and is indeed largely down to personal preference. If it were not we wouldn't need AfD discussions at all! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply we are indeed here to discuss its notability, but notability is certainly not subjective or down to personal preference. It's down to Wikipedia's definition of notability, which is quite clear: significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The purpose of AfD discussions isn't to decide amongst ourselves if we think or want something to be notable, but to prove it's notable (or not) by presenting sources (or not). If you can prove notabilty by presenting these sources, then please do.  Mi re ma re  21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, a Wikipedia version in one of the world's most notable constructed languages is notable. J I P  | Talk 05:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Either redirect to List of Wikipedias or delete. It is not the case that we have separate articles about every single language edition of Wikipedia. For example, the Scots Wikipedia, Inuktitut Wikipedia, and Tibetan Wikipedia articles were deleted by AfDs, and the Kashubian Wikipedia article was redirected to List of Wikipedias. Wikipedias have to establish notability like any other web site per WP:WEB. That said, the Volapuk Wikipedia is larger, at least in number of articles, than most other Wikipedias, which might not be enough to establish notability, but it doesn't hurt. There has been some controversy over the fact that it has been mostly created through bot-generated articles, but as far as I can tell the controversy has been limited only to Wikimedia sites and a few blog posts. I can't find any coverage of the Volapuk Wikipedia in regular media. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Suggestion. Is there a place for this article, or at least some of the content, in Wikipedia Namespace? Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This isn't something insignificant, it's an actual official Wikipedia in another (albiet constructed) language. This isn't an Wikipedia clone somewhere else, but an official part of the Wikipedia namespace. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/Scots Wikipedia (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Inuktitut Wikipedia, Articles for deletion/Tibetan Wikipedia, and Articles for deletion/Kashubian Wikipedia (2nd nomination). Those are all official Wikipedias, but just being a Wikipedia edition was deemed not enough to warrant having separate articles for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not notable under WP:N or WP:WEB, not even close. Nary a reliable source has paid attention to this site, and if it weren't a WMF project we wouldn't be here. Afterall, for all other articles we require independent coverage. If there's content that isn't all ready at List of Wikipedias, I suppose I would not object to adding that in, and a redirect is appropriate, but there just isn't the independent coverage to justify a stand alone article. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  16:46, 3 August 2008 (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.