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. Maxim_(talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania German Wikipedia[edit]

Pennsylvania German Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The Pennsylvania German 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 Pennsylvania German 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) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 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	Pennsylvania German	???	1,600

• Delete per very detailed nom. Merge into List of Wikipedias or another central location. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Inactive wikipedia that isn't particularly notable.--TBC ♣§♠ !?! 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. DGG (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of Wikipedias, Not very notable and Notability isn't inherited, even if it's a Wikimedia project. Inclusion in List of Wikipedias will be just fine. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to Keep because of things pointed out by users below, it really looks like the nom is on a mission to delete all small-sized wikis. The table did strike me as odd when I saw it, but that had nothing to do with my original vote. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:44, 9 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 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 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• 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nominator is wasting AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect there has always been consensus that small wikis that doesn't meet the sourcing guidelines should be redirected or deleted, I don't see why this one is more different than the others, and commnents such as nominator is wasting AFD time isn't a valid reasoning. Secret 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As an Englishman, I had no idea that this language even existed, but the article on it clearly inducates that it does. The existence of the WP in the language is noteworthy, even if the article is only a stub. The considerationas are the same as for the Amharic WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 10 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.