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 to delete, default to keep. Any mergers or redirects can be decided on on the talk page. Sandstein (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedias[edit]

List of Wikipedias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not an encyclopedic topic. No potential for future expansion. Too self-referential. Enough? Taku (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Profoundly encyclopedic. Article expands with each new Wikipedia. Suspect bad faith nom. Ford MF (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by "bad faith"? In what way do you think the article is encyclopedic? The article doesn't expand in any substantial manner because it is just a list. All we will be doing is adding a new entry or updating the number. That's not an expansion in a substantial way. -- Taku (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just so I'm clear, I'm okay with the stats taking a powder, since they seem prone to collecting dust and don't seem much use anyway. Avoiding self-reference is a good thing, but taken too far you wind up with a nonsensical blackout on useful Wikipedia-related information (Brittanica doesn't have a "Brittanica" article either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a "Wikipedia" one). A redirect to meta is insufficient. Particularly since we keep a list of links in the left-hand toolbar to the same article in other Wikipedias. And if you don't know the alphabet or language used, it's impossible to tell what Wikipedias they are without looking up their language extension. The list has helped me out dozens of times. Also, as someone else mentioned below, the proliferation of Wikipedias is an obviously notable phenomenon. Ford MF (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A list of language wikipedias already exists on M:List_of_Wikipedias. Also, assume good faith. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to M:List_of_Wikipedias. If anyone wants to salvage the (meager) originally-researched stats, perhaps a move to the Wikipedia namespace. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to M:List_of_Wikipedias per Dhartung. I'm ok with the namespace move as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just for the record, I'm perfectly ok with soft redirect. (The idea didn't occur to me at the time of nomination.) -- Taku (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Extremely encyclopedic. List counterpart of the Wikipedias by language category, should be kept per CLN. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want to question your seriousness. But why do you say "extremely encyclopedic"? You don't find an article like this one in Britannica, for instance. -- Taku (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  For the most part, each wikipedia is a notable social and internet phenomenon. Per WEB notability guidelines, the contents more than fit the bill. A list of them is perfectly in line with our categories, lists and navigational templates guidelines. Think about this as a navigational tool, like a category; not like an article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is meta information which we cover elsewhere as noted above. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per Dhartung. --JulesN Talk 09:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists are useful if they add something to what's available through categories (see WP:CLN), and I think this one does. True, much of what it adds (and more) is also in M:List_of_Wikipedias, but that's in meta, so it doesn't have wikilinks to the english-language articles about the individual wikipedias (and so it can't be used for navigation within the English wikipedia). Klausness (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the page on Meta or to something in the projectspace. Not encyclopedic for its own article. Malinaccier (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Totally unencyclopediac. Teh Rote (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Where this goes wrong is in its foolish attempt to make a table of statistics about number of articles, number of users, and other statistics that you can't possibly keep track of. Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Britannica, I'd guess, doesn't come in dozens or hundreds of editions simultaneously. If each Wikipedia edition weren't considered notable by itself, or too self-referential for its own article, I'd want to see this deleted, but as long as they're considered good enough for their own articles, surely a list of them is good and useful. And as noted, there's at least a small possibility for expansion: otherwise, we'd have to start going at something like List of cities and towns in Rhode Island, of which there's absolutely no realistic chance of expansion. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not understanding how these aren't encyclopedic; Wikipedia is quite notable. This is a list of notable Wikipedias. While the statistics need some work, that's a surmountable problem; I don't really see the rationale for deletion, except perhaps redundancy with Meta, but I don't think that's strong enough to delete it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  (This is also a response to the above thread, and to Nyttend's comment.) Well, there is no doubt that Wikipedia is a notable encyclopedia project, and that's why we have Wikipedia. I think we have or we have crated this article because the list is fairly lengthly, making it unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. But as said above, this doesn't make the list an encyclopedic topic. It seems just so obvious that while List of cities and towns in Rhode Island is encyclopedic, this one is not. It should be also noted that Category:Wikipedias_by_language could serve the navigational purpose, thought that doesn't preclude the creation of lists. -- Taku (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is surmountable and fixable. We don't delete for fixable problems. It can be split by region or something. That's an issue for the talk page. Regarding your other point, It's not obvious to me. Each wikipedia (for the most part) is notable. They are members of the category for easy grouping, which is good for machines. They are entered into this list for easy reading and the ability to include extra information, which is good for humans. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are referring to by "first problem"? The listing all language editions in Wikipedia? That's quite impractical in my opinion. (But that's not an issue here.) For the second, like I said, I agree that Wikipedia is notable and some of language editions (e.g., English, German) are notable too. But that does not make "list of Wikipedias" an encyclopedic topic. I can also see the value of the list, but again "usefulness" doesn't directly translate into "encyclopedic-ness". -- Taku (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists aren't articles in the traditional sense. Like categories, which are useful for machine-based operations, and templates, which help give people relevant articles within the article text, lists are just another method of navigating Wikipedia. It's not 'an article' in the sense that Leonardo da Vinci is an article. You might want to review LISTS, especially the information on stand-alone lists. They're a part of our nav system. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not understanding me correctly. I am perfectly aware of LISTS, as I am creators of lots of List X articles. My point is that this particular list doesn't have any encyclopedic value, which is a separate issue from the notability of Wikipedia or if lists are perfectly ok articles in Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite to be more navigational and less self centered. Remove statistics columns except article count which should be added for all languages with a date for the count. Add a link to the article about that language in addition to the Wikipedia for the language. Maybe add a link to the country with most speakers of the language. Include all languages with at least X articles, for example X=100. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Redundant to Template:Wikipedias. Merge the graphs into the article Wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy is not a reason for deletion with regards to categories, lists and navigational templates. Please review relevant guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is meta information which we cover elsewhere as noted above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you say its redundant to the nav template? That is also redundant to meta information. If I nominate that for AfD, would you say the same thing? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because Template:Wikipedias is a valid and important navigational template which collects all notable wikipedias in one place. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the list is somehow not in line with our guidelines on a set of navigational tools on the wikipedias? If you see a problem with the way CLN is implemented in this list, fix it, or at least bring it to the attention to others so it can be fixed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is not redundant with the template, which omits many Wikis for reasons of space and usefulness. If you look at the template's talkpage, you'll see the editorial thinking that decides what is and is not included in the template, which is deliberately not supposed to be an exhaustive list of Wikipedias. Ford MF (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems like a useful list to me; it certainly could be expanded (somehow) considering that there are a lot of statistics available between the existing Wikipedias. Gary King (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  But isn't that sort of expansion makes the article only more self-referential? -- Taku (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non encyclopedic. JeanLatore (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - list of wikis; covers the same content, could easily have a section for this info. WLU (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but trim. Merging with List of wikis wouldn't work because as I've been told many times, Wikipedia and wikis are not the same thing, although they are similar. I say trim because there are aspects of this list that could be seen as unmaintainable at best, WP:OR at worst, such as details about traffic, etc. I say delete those and perhaps instead expand a little on some of the more notable Wikipedias, perhaps referencing notable differences (i.e. the German Wikipedia not allowing Fair Use images, for example). I know there's a bit of a weird prejudice around here regarding Wikipedia articles actually about Wikipedia (as in articles in regular articlespace, not in "WP:" space) but this is a viable topic for a list. 23skidoo (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Merging does not work. The article is important enough. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Somehow, I think this is a place people would logically expect to find information on wikipedias. DGG (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, this is so obvious... like DGG said, it is expected to find this here. Mathmo ^Talk 08:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Given that this list already exists on Meta, doesn't it make sense to have either the Meta redirect here or vice versa? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, the important difference between the two is the links. In the Meta version, the links go to the appropriate wikipedias. Here, the links go to the English-language articles about the wikipedias. That's what makes this a useful list. It wouldn't be appropriate to have a Meta page redirect to the English-language wikipedia or to have the links there go to articles in the English-language wikipedia rather than to the actual wikipedias. Klausness (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This article can be used to find different wikipedias. This article can be (somehow) expanded. Also, it doesn't seem to fail any wikipedia guidelines.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:32, 2 May 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.