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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Internet encyclopedia with <10,000 articles. All coverage is from Wikimedia projects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Alemannic wikipedia is the biggest encyclopedia in Alemannic German. There is also coverage in newspapers from Southwest Germany, Lichtenstein, and Switzerland:
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. We shouldn't make it hard for anyone who searches for the Alemannic Wikipedia on this one to find it. However, we shouldn't have a full article on a project that doesn't meet our notability standards for websites. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The academic citations are sufficient for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of wikipedias. Most minor wikipedias are not notable enough for their own article. Gigs (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion is not about "most Wikipedias", but about the Alemannic Wikipedia, for which significant coverage in independent reliable sources has been shown above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has received significant coverage in what seems to be reliable secondary sources:
It would be good to add those to the article. Even if it is redirected, the history will be kept so that it can be restored someday. Gigs (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rankiri.--Milowent (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder presented more than enough sources above to demonstrate notability. I note that none of the delete !voters after that explained why they think that those sources are inadequate. Don't people even read the preceding comments before giving an opinion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (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.