- 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.
Closed as Keep as per WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia article makes no assertion of notability. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB.
I recommend a delete' for the above reasons. I recommend extra care be given to consideration of the issue, since Wikipedia damages its credibility to the extent that it suspends its own policy to favour listing its own websites.
A number of recent AFD debates related to wikipedia version articles are shown in the table below for reference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
| Date AFD closed | Result | Wikipedia Links to AFD |
Visits per day [1] | Article count (official) [2] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-02-22 | Keep | List of article pages | n/a | n/a |
| 2007-10-09 | No consensus to delete | Kashubian | ??? | 1,600 |
| 2007-11-12 | Redirect | Kashubian 2nd nom | ??? | 1,600 |
| 2007-02-22 | Keep (part of the List of article pages AFD,above) | Scots | ??? | 2,200 |
| 2007-08-02 | Delete | Scots 2nd nom | ??? | 2,200 |
| 2008-03-07 | Redirect | Hawaiian | ??? | 322 |
| This AFD | This AFD | Scottish Gaelic | 54 | 4,900 |
- Keep I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right. Small does not mean non-notable. Even if it were to be discontinued, it would still be an appropriate subject, given the discussion of the validity of having it. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the List of Wikipedias until such time as there is secondary coverage. These itsy-bitsy courtesy Wikipedias are cool in a way, but they have no inherent notability and should not.--Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - because the table posted is unduely prejudicial in attempting to have this article deleted based on other AfD's, which is not how AfD works. It seems to walk awfully close to WP:GAMEing the system in my mind. If Tagishsimon feels that all small Wiki's should go, then begin a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion instead of picking off easy ones, one at a time. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is far more important than yet another pokemon or starwars character —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and delete nominator - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.