Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsonga Wikipedia

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 delete. The "keep" side mostly argues that this website is inherently notable as a version of Wikipedia. This argument must be given little weight, because it has no basis in the applicable guidelines, as has been pointed out. No "keep" arguments based on coverage in reliable sources, as would be expected in light of WP:N, have been made. For future reference, the article consisted only of two sentences stating the date of creation and the size of the website.  Sandstein  16:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia language edition with fewer than 300 articles. Clearly fails WP:WEB. Graham (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: does not fail WP:WEB just because it only has 300 as of right now. It's already notable simply for being a language version of Wikipedia. ^{(e.g. see this part: please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education)}--Fixuture (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fixuture: Certainly Wikipedia is notable, but notability is not inherited. I can't find any evidence of the Tsonga Wikipedia having "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." (Similarly, while Pokémon is notable, it is well established that not each of the hundreds of Pokémon are sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article.) Moreover, it certainly doesn't meet WP:WEBCRIT as it is a struggle to even find reference to its existence made by non-Wikimedia sources. By the same measure, it is hard to see how the article could ever meet WP:V (provided that the Tsonga Wikipedia doesn't significantly expand in the future). Graham (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I probably should have asked this earlier, Fixuture, but on what basis are you arguing that the Tsonga Wikipedia has had "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" (as you cited)? Graham (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On the basis that it's Tsonga Wikipedia with Wikipedia in general having significant effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. And also because it's probably the only Tsonga language web encyclopedia and one of the most informative and impactful Tsonga language websites. I guess the "no inheritability" is a good point - however I don't think that it's detrimental in any way to just leave that article up until its notability / impact are confirmed better. Even if it's just for nothing but a handful of stats on that Wikipedia's size and scope. Also:

Similarly, while Pokémon is notable, it is well established that not each of the hundreds of Pokémon are sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article.

Indeed. But Pokémon itself is notable in every language. Wikipedia is available in many different languages with each deserving an article imo. --Fixuture (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fixuture:

On the basis that it's Tsonga Wikipedia with Wikipedia in general having significant effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

The notability of Wikipedia as a whole (and, by extension, the effect that Wikipedia as a whole has had on culture, society, entertainment, etc.) is not is what is at dispute here. Notability guidelines apply to a given article's subject (e.g, the Tsonga Wikipedia), not to a different, overarching subject which already has a separate article (e.g, Wikipedia in general).

And also because it's probably the only Tsonga language web encyclopedia and one of the most informative and impactful Tsonga language websites.

Is there any evidence of it being "one of the most informative and impactful Tsonga language websites"? Because given the apparent lack of "verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners", that definitely seems difficult to substantiate.

I guess the "no inheritability" is a good point - however I don't think that it's detrimental in any way to just leave that article up until its notability / impact are confirmed better.

That sounds like WP:NOHARM. But to clarify, what do you mean by "until its notability / impact are confirmed better"? Is there information that we are currently lacking that you expect will somehow come to light in the future? Graham (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep hmm, this is a tough one, but I'm inclined to think that being an edition of Wikipedia makes it notable here. It is certainly not advertising. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't think language editions of Wikipedia are inherently notable, but if we delete this, then there are several other small language edition articles that also should be deleted. That's perfectly reasonable, but then this is what should be discussed, and a filing to remove several of them should be done. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OpenFuture: WP:BUNDLE reads, "… for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." As well, if there were a joint filing, there may be concerns raised about whether some small language editions might be exceptionally notable despite their size. Given WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I see no harm individually assessing this article. Should one wish to make a joint filing, they are welcome to do so, but I don't think that has any bearing on whether this particular article should be deleted at this moment. Graham (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just because it's a WMF-related website/encyclopedia doesn't mean we should keep it, According to the article and I quote they only have "318 articles which makes it the 267th largest article wikipedia"1, That's not exactly something to be proud of considering we've reached and now passed 5 million articles, not every WMF-language-related encyclopedia needs to be kept and this is one of them, If they wanna create a "Tsonga Wikipedia" article on the Tsonga Wikipedia then they can knock themselves out, Anyway non notable encyclopedia, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have to agree with the previous comment that this is not a violation of WP:WEB, nor am I hearing any credible argument that demands its immediate removal from this site. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many non notable Wikis have been deleted due to a lack of notability and this Wiki is no different ...., As I said above just because it's related to the WMF doesn't mean it's a free pass to an article .... –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wikipedia. Boy, this is a tricky one. If the notability problems are really this big a problem, a redirect is probably the best yet otherwise pretty tough option for this Wikipedia-related topic. edtiorEهեইдအ😎 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Redirecting would cause more problems than it's worth, Outright Keep or Outright Delete is the only best option IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 3 March 2016 (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.