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. and not likely to emerge. Good arguments on both sides, but ultimately whether to merge the content is one for editorial discussion. Not AfD. While there are good reasons for keeping the content in some form and deleting it, there's no clear consensus in either way StarM 04:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu Wikipedia[edit]

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

with 10 participants and 143 pages, I think this may just fail WP:WEB. [1]. Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as you are recommending deleting that article on the Zulu language version of Wikipedia. As for how many people participate, please give WP:BIG a read. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yes I am recommending deleting that article on the Zulu language version of Wikipedia, care to comment on how this meets WP:WEB? What would be the grounds for keeping this, let alone speedy keeping this. Your remarks actually give no reason at all.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It is Wikipedia, which is already established as notable. That it is a different language version of Wikipedia is valid as an article without having to independently pass wp:web as it even uses the same domain. As for the other half of the argument, again see WP:BIG. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • I don't see the relevance of BIG, indeed, used like this, it seems like an argument to keep every website. Perhaps we should redirect this to Wikipedia since the franchise is notable. But the fact that we have an article on MacDonald's is notable, doesn't mean every branch is, unless that branch has some independent claim to fame.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BIG means that the part of your nomination that says "with 10 participants and 143 pages," is nullified. If you had said they had 1 trillion users, or 1 user, BIG says "doesn't matter". The number of users/hits/members can't be used as a reason to keep OR delete in an AFD. Now we are only left with notability/wp:web, which is a valid nomination reason, by all means. In this particular case, however, I feel that the Zulu version is covered as being an actual part of Wikipedia. It doesn't have to independently establish any notability, pass wp:web, etc. It uses the same domain as the english version. It is notable by simply being a non-english version of a very notable website, Wikipedia.org. That makes it encyclopedic, regardless of the rules. Even it got down to nothing but WP:IAR, then IAR would apply in this case. You are free to disagree. I am not saying that every subproject of wikipedia should get this free pass, but main level projects, yes. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ...Delete Fails WP:WEB. I'm not sure what the business about GOOGLEHITS is above, but nothing is "nullified" or anything like that. It's simply an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Clearly, the comment by the nom about number of articles and participants was a lead in to saying "it fails WP:WEB". While I would prefer the nom spell out why it fails that particular daughter notability guideline, it isn't mandatory. I see one news hit for "Zulu language" wikipedia, this information week article (which just mentions the subject), and I'm not sure how to properly eliminate confounding terms in a web search. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean one English language hit. You didn't search in Zulu. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm not going to search in Zulu. I frankly don't care. This is the english wikipedia. Its readers and editors overwhemlingly speak english as a primary language. As such, our coverage of material will be distorted toward subjects which are covered in english language media. If someone can speak/read Zulu and wants to translate references and source this article, great. But odds are this isn't going to happen. On that note, how many reliable sources have your searches in Zulu found? Protonk (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do any searches in Zulu, but that's irrelevant. I'm not the one saying that there's not enough sources without checking all the possibilities. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to prove a negative. I can only make rough assertions about likelihood of sourcing based on searches. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I probably chose the wrong word with "nullified", I meant that I won't consider that in arguing, and others likely won't either (and shouldn't). I didn't mean it as a policy nullification per se. I still believe we should give a pass to non-English top level projects here. Yes, if all else fails, then under WP:IAR, as being "encyclopedic", in the most literal of terms. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 11:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should sister projects and other language wikipedias be given a pass? Surely NPOV would tell us to treat coverage of wikipedia as though it were coverage of another online encyclopedia. We can't be a neutral reference if our article content favors WMF projects (I already have my beef with our WP:EL policy favoring WMF projects, but that's more of an in-house issue). Protonk (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wikipedia 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Pharmboy's assessment. The Zulu Wikipedia is part of Wikipedia and doesn't need to establish notability of its own. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just to echo a bit of Pharmboy's statement. In this case, I think notability is inherent, because the Zulu language is simply notable. The fact that that there are few participants in that version of Wikipedia is not relevant. What does it take to get a subdomain of wikipedia.org? Can any average joe make foo.wikipedia.org? I'm asking out of curiosity for that one. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect. Why is notability inherited in this case when one of our guiding principles is that notability is not inherited? This needs to pass WP:WEB and I see no evidence that it does. AndyJones (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I choose WP:IAR on this one. This isn't a language made up in a day, nor a hoax, but a legitimate subdomain of wikipedia.org. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "keep per: ignore all rules" doesn't sound like much of a reason to me. I'll stick with my delete! AndyJones (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That is certainly your prerogative, but I'll just quote the actual phrase for the sake of hearing my own voice: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.. I don't see how deleting this can be an improvement. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion I almost never cite WP:IAR, but this is a textbook case of why it exists. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 13:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:WEB and other notability guidelines are not rules, there is nothing to ignore. Just give a reason for your opinion and that's fine. IAR has nothing to do with it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now you are splitting hairs. WP:RAP gives an interesting statement, The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles., with that inclusive and between "rule" and "policies", which sure sounds like both "rules" and "policies" can be considered "the rules". As for your last comment, I gave my opinion: deleting this makes no sense, how would deleting it improve the encyclopedia, and how would keeping it be a detriment? Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Come now. Using that logic, then WP:IAR can never apply to anything, ever, as Wikipedia doesn't have "rules", it has "guidelines". It exists to keep us all from becoming Wikilawyers with policy, and to allow common sense to rule in the end. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 14:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR applies mainly to process rules (which should normally be followed), notability guidelines are not rules in any manner of speaking. They only record what "usually" gets kept or deleted. IAR should only be invoked as an exception, however notability guidelines can always be ignored. Indeed, I seldom if ever read them. Notability guidelines are NOT rules, however you wish to define rules.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but to break the circular argument. Since I've invoked IAR, and you've declined that, rather asking for a open opinion, would you mind doing the same? Without invoking rules, guidelines, policies, whatever, but using the spirit of the encylopedia, would you mind doing the same, and answer my question which I posed twice, while considering your own comments: how will deleting this be an improvement? Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note As per the IAR essay Wikipedia:Use common sense: Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. and The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter. which seem to indicate that notability or any other rule/policy/etc can be subject to IAR. It does not apply only to "rules" per se. Applying it so literally is wikilawyering. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines are not any sorts of rules or policies. There's simply no need to invoke IAR. Why should this be deleted? Because we need to have some quality control, to prevent any nonsense, falsehoods, and libels, being in wikipedia. Our quality control is that Wikipedia works were multiple editors review articles and fix mistakes. Untruths get spotted. Wikipedia does not work for articles on things that are too "unnotable" because such things will (generally) be seldom viewed, poorly maintained, poorly watched, and factual inaccuracies may remain. Whilst wikipedia is not paper, maintenance requires some level of editor/reader interest. Websites which have 10 participants, and (seemingly) no third party media interest, will almost always have minuscule levels of article interest.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So forgive me if I sound like I am putting words in your mouth, which I am not, but I am trying to interpret that statement. You're saying that the Zulu wiki is nonsense, false and/or libelous? Or the material on the Zulu wiki is nonsense, false and/or libelous? Or the potential exists that the material on the Zulu wiki is nonsense, false and/or libelous? How do other (non-en) wikipedias deal with nonsense, falsehood and libel? How does en deal with that stuff? Sounds like to me, that is a case for administrative infrastructure of that wiki, rather than the deletion of an entire wiki based on the possibility that there may be cases of nonsense, falsehoods and libelous material. Using that logic, en.wiki should be deleted as well, since there are many instances of such. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you the reason to delete things for lack of notability, the other option is to keep everything, and attempt to maintain everything.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary sources to demonstrate notability. WP:BIG does not work in reverse; the essay linked to is about how large numbers don't automatically make something notable. A website with small numbers probably isn't notable. Sources are what makes an article notable, and this article only has some statistics. There is a consensus that notability isn't simply "inherited" (see Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise), there must be sources. Ignore all rules is a dangerous gambit. You are in effect saying "I know this article doesn't follow policy, but this article is a special case." You have not demonstrated how this article is a special case. You would have a much better chance to save this article if you find sources and use them to improve the article, and not have to fall back to WP:IAR. Until then, I have to vote delete. --Phirazo (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't deal with website articles, so I'll not "vote". Two comments, though: (1) An AFD some weeks ago resulted in the deletion of at least one, likely more, article(s) on certain language editions of Wikipedia; I can't give you the link, but I can assure you that the idea of deleting an article on an edition of Wikipedia has at least some recent precedent; and (2) notability guidelines are specifically made to guide us in deletion or keeping, not in showing what usually happens. Showing what usually happens is the job of WP:OUTCOMES. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, since what I consider to be common sense doesn't work, let's try discussing something else. The article states that "It is one of the least-frequently updated language editions of Wikipedia". That would make it a record. Still not notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Records" don't make things notable. Coverage in independent, reliable sources does. I don't know how discussing whether or not an article meets WP:WEB or WP:GNG is not "common sense". Protonk (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Wikipedia has 14 content pages and 15 active users. ([2]) --Phirazo (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it fails WP:WEB miserably and lacks non-trivial coverage by third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia. It seems very silly to have an article about each language version. --NE2 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and develop as it grows and ask people thee to help source. If there are sources in Zulu, they should know. And it seems very sensible to have an article about each language version. DGG (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"develop as it grows", assumes that it will. You have a way of knowing that? "ask people there"? Apparently there are ten users - how many of them are active and speak English? And isn't that original research. It is highly unlikely that there are third part sources for a 10 user website. But don't we demand such verification before we keep things? Your answer really makes not sense to me?—Scott MacDonald (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to concur here with Scott MacDonald. The vote above is just overzealous inclusionism and nothing more. JBsupreme (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly fails WP:WEB, just because it's a Wikimedia project doesn't give it a free pass. RMHED (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia. Individual sub-units of an organisation are not inherently notable per WP:ORG, and given the lack of coverage about the Zulu language version, there is no independent notability established. -- Whpq (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia. The notability RFC might not have reached many firm conclusions, but one which was definitely rejected was that "all spin-outs are notable", and that's the only argument I see given here in favour of keeping. No prejudice on recreation in the far future when it's all growed up, but for now it's just another non-notable website which happens to have some big and flashy affiliates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Because it fails WP:WEB and just because it is associated with Wikipedia is no excuse for overriding a well defined policy. Also, has anyone considered redirecting to List of Wikipedias? For some reason I find that more appropriate. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 10:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mostly per Pharmboy. I don't think it fails WP:WEB as, IMO, it passes criterion 3, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." Wikipedia itself passes this IMO. Firebat08 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 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.