382:, including several dozen much smaller than the cy. (currently on 15,000+ articles and growing daily). My question is, why are they "notable" but cy. apparently is not? With comparatively few websites entirely in Welsh, the Welsh wikipedia is important to Welsh culture on-line and, like the rest of the wikipedias, has great potential as an educational resource. Why this hurry to delete this when articles on much smaller language wikipedias seem perfectly acceptable? As for notability, try googling Welsh topics (avoiding English) and you'll see how often cy. comes up. I would go so far as to say that the coverage of Wales is more extensive than on en. Online references will be found, but mostly in blogs and discussion sites, mainly because Welsh-language websites are relatively few in number. Knowledge is far bigger than just en., even if it's the largest single language wiki. Time to be less parochial?
610:- in case it's relevant, it may be worth pointing out that several of the above users (Enaidmawr, Rhyswynne, Thaf, Deb) are major contributors to the Welsh wikipedia. Hope this doesn't constitute a conflict of interest; better to point it out gently now before somebody screams about it. My own feeling about the article is a bit mixed, even though I too have an interest in the project. I reckon that probably there is not enough to establish sufficient notability in its current form, although there may well be if the external references alluded to above (Golwg, y Faner Newydd) were tracked down and added to the article. But then neither would I favour keeping stub articles on minor anime characters (per Enaidmawr's comment). —
306:, it appears that the Welsh wikipedia is five times as big as the largest wikipedia listed by Metropolitan90 as a precedent (Scots) and ten times as large as the largest one listed that uses what's generally accepted as being a distinct language language (Kashubian -- Scots is generally considered to be a dialect of English rather than a distinct language, and even Kashubian is considered by some to be a dialect of Polish), so I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to compare to those. Still, in the end it comes down to reliable sources, but I think we should let someone who can evaluate Welsh sources weigh in on that before we delete.
420:(other than the Czech Knowledge, which does have an equivalent, but I can't read it). But looking at the Czech, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, and Turkish articles about the Welsh Knowledge, it's obvious that they don't have any independent sources either. (That's understandable given that such sources, if they exist, are probably in either English or Welsh.) The fact that an article exists in another Knowledge does not mean that their editors have specifically taken an interest in whether that article is acceptable to them; maybe they just haven't gotten around to deleting it yet. --
481:. I do not think we should delete articles on wikipedias in languages other than English unless we have a clear assurance from fluent speakers of the language that they have searched hard and found no sources in the language. I am inclined to keep them with a rather lower notability criteria than normal as wikipedia is an obvious place for someone to search to see if there is a wikipedia in a given language (OK a more knowledgeable person might search meta, but many people do not even know meta exists). So, I say
302:, I think... I don't understand Welsh, but googling for "Cymraeg wikipedia" gives more hits than "Welsh wikipedia", so I suspect that there may be Welsh-language references to be found. It would be helpful if we could get a Welsh speaker to look at this and either add some references (if they exist) or tell ust that there aren't any good references to be found. Looking at
574:
527:, but as both these publications are in Welsh and have limited on-line presence, it's very difficult to provide refrences. As Eklipse mentions, it's unlilkely to be mentioned in English language press. While refrences are iimportant, this highlihgt how the Knowledge (the English version) could become an encyclopedia of only things that are
553:
While
English-language references are preferred in the English Knowledge, foreign-language references are fine if no comparable English-language references are available. And they don't need to be accessible on line in either case. So if you have Welsh-language references from reliable sources
401:
Addendum: It also has interwiki links to seven other language wikipedias, including
Spanish and Japanese. They seem to find it perfectly acceptable and I see no sign of it being proposed for deletion on those sites. But apparently it's not good enough for inclusion here, even though we have stub
593:- not because it's a wikipedia project, or because "stuff exists", but because it's important in the context of the Welsh language and having an article about it ensures that non-Welsh speakers can be kept informed. I think its value as an article will gradually become apparent.
638:, and frankly I think that Knowledge is already generally too lenient as regards mention of Wikimedia projects in article space, notwithstanding user Enaidmawr's comment that it is also too lenient as regards a lot of other trivia. —
630:. The main page already has a section devoted to Knowledge editions in other languages, with direct links to the more major ones, and a link to a complete list. If there is more that we can do to increase visibility from within
271:. Being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability, and no independent sources have been provided, nor could I find any. There are multiple precedents to not keep articles like this, such as the
188:
Withdrawing additional nomination - although I think the same issues affect both pages the contributors to the debate are largely concentrating on the title page and none concern the additional page alone.
280:
276:
628:"I am inclined to keep them with a rather lower notability criteria than normal as wikipedia is an obvious place for someone to search to see if there is a wikipedia in a given language"
119:
361:. My sort-of-"Keep" above is for the Welsh wikipedia. Since the Tajik wikipedia is smaller and significantly less active, I suspect that it doesn't meet the notability requirement.
272:
441:
427:
294:
472:
563:
547:
411:
391:
370:
351:
333:
315:
124:
644:
616:
511:
256:
494:
585:
602:
284:
457:
238:
198:
432:
I've expanded the article and added references. It's not perfect, perhaps, but it's a start. Please take a look at it and kindly reconsider.
342:(though it doesn't look all that active), since Tajik Knowledge is also part of this AfD (though it should really have its own AfD).
60:
339:
634:, then yes, great, I'm all for it. But I still think it's important to apply notability criteria consistently as regards
160:
155:
91:
86:
573:- if the National Library of Wales considers the site of enough importance to appear on their site as an e-resource at
502:. I think that the absence of sources comes from the fact that only Welsh media and publications have talked about it.
164:
95:
402:
articles aplenty on minor anime characters from forgotten TV series, third division
Norwegian soccer referees, etc.
321:
147:
78:
379:
17:
661:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
169:
100:
181:
112:
662:
36:
424:
291:
303:
252:
65:
177:
108:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
468:
151:
82:
173:
104:
8:
559:
543:
437:
421:
407:
396:
Additional comment: I notice that articles on three other Celtic language wikis, viz the
387:
366:
347:
329:
311:
288:
234:
194:
267:
507:
464:
490:
143:
74:
66:
581:
555:
539:
433:
403:
383:
362:
343:
325:
307:
230:
190:
51:
48:
The "keep" arguments are, frankly, poor; therefore no clear "keep" consensus.
598:
417:
222:
640:
612:
503:
218:
214:
248:
210:
486:
577:
226:
205:
The pages show no evidence that the topics have been the subject of
594:
655:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
554:(even if they aren't on line), please add them to the article.
416:
I don't know whether those other
Wikipedias have equivalents to
221:. There is also no evidence that the topics meet the specific
520:
132:
Also nominating the following page for the same reasons:
324:
to see if someone there can help out with references.
626:: Just been thinking about user Bduke's comment that
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
665:). No further edits should be made to this page.
458:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
456:: This debate has been included in the
46:no consensus to delete, default to keep.
14:
340:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Tajikistan
576:then there must be something to it.
519:. I've read about the Wicipedia in
247:both, notability is not inherited.
225:unless simply being distributed by
23:
24:
677:
378:. There are 100 articles in the
322:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Wales
380:Wikipedias by language category
338:I've also posted a question at
264:per nom, or as a second choice
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
13:
1:
7:
219:primary notability criteria
217:sources as required by the
10:
682:
320:I've posted a question at
229:makes something notable.
658:Please do not modify it.
645:18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
617:12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
603:20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
586:13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
564:12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
548:10:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
512:08:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
495:00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
473:22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
442:23:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
428:06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
412:23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
392:22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
371:19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
352:19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
334:19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
316:13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
295:04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
257:22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
239:17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
199:23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
61:19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
304:Meta:List of Wikipedias
266:delete and redirect to
223:criteria for web pages
207:significant coverage
268:List of Wikipedias
636:article namespace
632:project namespace
475:
461:
59:
673:
660:
462:
452:
398:
397:
185:
167:
122:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
44:The result was
34:
681:
680:
676:
675:
674:
672:
671:
670:
669:
663:deletion review
656:
624:Further comment
525:Y Fanner Newydd
158:
144:Tajik Knowledge
142:
118:
89:
75:Welsh Knowledge
73:
70:
67:Welsh Knowledge
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
679:
668:
667:
650:
648:
647:
620:
619:
605:
588:
568:
567:
566:
514:
497:
476:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
422:Metropolitan90
399:
373:
356:
355:
354:
336:
297:
289:Metropolitan90
287:Wikipedias. --
259:
203:
202:
129:
128:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
678:
666:
664:
659:
653:
652:
651:
646:
643:
642:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
621:
618:
615:
614:
609:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
536:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
474:
470:
466:
459:
455:
451:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:
429:
426:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
400:
395:
394:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
296:
293:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
263:
260:
258:
254:
250:
246:
243:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
201:
200:
196:
192:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
166:
162:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
139:
137:
136:
134:
133:
126:
121:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
657:
654:
649:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
611:
607:
590:
570:
537:
534:
531:
528:
524:
516:
499:
482:
478:
453:
375:
358:
299:
265:
261:
244:
206:
204:
187:
141:
138:
135:
131:
130:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
538:Enlgish. --
465:Fabrictramp
211:independent
535:Bold text'
532:Bold text'
54:Sandstein
556:Klausness
540:Rhyswynne
434:Enaidmawr
404:Enaidmawr
384:Enaidmawr
363:Klausness
344:Klausness
326:Klausness
308:Klausness
281:Inuktitut
277:Kashubian
231:Guest9999
227:Wikimedia
191:Guest9999
215:reliable
125:View log
608:Comment
523:and in
504:Eklipse
479:Comment
359:Comment
285:Tibetan
161:protect
156:history
92:protect
87:history
529:in''''
425:(talk)
418:WP:WEB
292:(talk)
283:, and
262:Delete
249:Stifle
245:Delete
165:delete
120:delete
96:delete
521:Golwg
487:Bduke
273:Scots
182:views
174:watch
170:links
123:) – (
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
641:Alan
613:Alan
599:talk
591:Keep
582:talk
578:Thaf
571:Keep
560:talk
544:talk
517:Keep
508:talk
500:Keep
491:talk
485:. --
483:keep
469:talk
454:Note
438:talk
408:talk
388:talk
376:Keep
367:talk
348:talk
330:talk
312:talk
300:Keep
253:talk
235:talk
195:talk
178:logs
152:talk
148:edit
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
595:Deb
463:--
460:.
209:by
601:)
584:)
562:)
546:)
510:)
493:)
471:)
440:)
410:)
390:)
369:)
350:)
332:)
314:)
279:,
275:,
255:)
237:)
213:,
197:)
180:|
176:|
172:|
168:|
163:|
159:|
154:|
150:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
597:(
580:(
558:(
542:(
506:(
489:(
467:(
436:(
406:(
386:(
365:(
346:(
328:(
310:(
251:(
233:(
193:(
184:)
146:(
127:)
117:(
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.