Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Sámi 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. ÷seresin 05:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Sámi Wikipedia

Contested redirect and contested prod. Prod contested because "per WP:IAR - other Wikipedias deserve pages", which is not a correct application of WP:IAR at all, but prod removals may be for good or bad reasons, they still can't be undone. I plan to nominate a truckload of similar articles on smaller Wikipedia versions over the next weeks and months, since they all had their redirect undone and prod removed. I will not create a batch nomination because they may well have widely differing grades of notability, and a delete for one does not automatically imply a delete for another one. But the precedent from previous discussions indicates that many people agree that other Wikipedia's don't automatically inherit the notability of the general Wikipedia concept or of the English Wikipedia in particular. I have listed some previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia#Removal of Articles about smaller Wikipedias after I was challenged for redirecting them en masse.

About this article in particular: it fails WP:N badly. There are no reliable independent sources that discuss the Northern Sámi Wikipedia. Using the English title, I get only 40 distinct Google hits[1] and no Google news hits[2]. Using their own spelling "Wikipediija", I get 180 Google hits[3], most from other Wikipedias and Wikipedia mirrors, no Google News hits[4], and no Books or Scholar hits either. Fram (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While it might fail english notability, are there any news, papers, etc in the Northern Sami language? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them somewhere Surely there is a fitting article. If not, maybe meta could take them? I would hate to see AfD clogged up with these when there is probably an alternative that wouldn't precipitate massive debate and drama. Gigs (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect of this and similar Wikipedia version pages to List of Wikipedias was opposed when I did it in May of this year. It was tagged for notability for nearly a year in 2007-2008, but this as well was removed without providing any evidence of notability. I don't oppose a redirect (not much to merge), but it seems that there are a number of editors opposed to any merging, redirecting, or even tagging of these articles... E.g. the Samogitian Wikipedia was redirected for a year, but recently recreated. And as I said, I don't want to do a mass nomination because some of them will be notable after all, and such nominations typically end in keeps Fram (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still encourage you to look at some other option than individual AfDs. They are potentially useful redirects. If you need wider community attention, then start an RfC. I don't think many people will be in the group that wants to keep these, many are obviously are not notable. Gigs (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N Niteshift36 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a mass PROD of other language Wikipedias, and I deprodded most of them as I wanted a community discussion. I personally think that articles about other Wikipedias are a special case, and we should ignore all rules and keep them, but I agree that an RfC - per Gigs - is better than individual nominations. Fences and windows (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am inclined to agree with Fences and windows that articles about other Wikipedias are a special case where we it is appropriate to keep despite the lack of proper sources. Failing that, I redirect & merge is clearly superior to outright deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why would other Wikipedias be a special case? How can we ever defend the deletion of any website with a few hundred or thousand visitors if we make an exception for ourselves? We should not consider ourselves more important than other subjects. Fram (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would reply by saying: 1) popularity isn't the same thing as notability and 2) Other stuff exists is never a valid reason for keeping an article (thus keeping this one can't be used to justify keeping other articles). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, but this Wikipedia is neither popular nor notable... 2. I know, but double standards are a bad thing, and this is what some of you are applying here. Fram (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to include articles on all the other Wikipedias this is 1. Perfectly sensible, as readers would expect to find info about them 2. Not at all setting a precedent, as it only applies to other Wikipedia projects. This is an example where Wikipedia's systematic bias and navel gazing make perfect sense. But I really feel that a wider discussion is needed on this point, so we don't keep having the same arguments on 20 different AfDs, or slowly pick off the smaller Wikipedias with no wider discussion. Fences and windows (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why would readers expect this? Perhaps they would expect this in the Wikipedia namespace, but why would they expect an article on a small unnoticed website, only beacuse it is also called Wikipedia? 2. Why does it makes "perfect sense"? It makes no sense at all, it just gives the impression that we don't apply the same standards to ourselves as we do for the rest of the Web, that we consider ourselves to be more important. 3. As for "slowly picking off the smaller Wikipedias": attempts at picking them off all together (by redirecting or prodding) have been opposed as well, despite older AfD's indicating that deletion or redirecting was the best solution for these. And the discussion on the Wikiproject related to these articles never took off either. It seems that whatever method one tries to tackle these, it is never the right one. Fram (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Being a Wikipedia is not an inherent claim to notability; a Wikipedia needs to satisfy WP:WEB to be considered notable. No sources have been provided other than the site itself. I note that Northern Sami is a language spoken in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, three of the most Internet-connected countries in the world. Even if the Sami-speaking population is not as net-connected as the general population of those countries, one might expect that there would be media coverage in Norwegian, Swedish, or Finnish to take note of the Wikipedia in the minority language, if this Wikipedia were having any cultural impact. Furthermore, one might expect that the Northern Sami Wikipedia would at least have significant coverage of the region where the speakers of this language live. Yet the Northern Sami Wikipedia's articles on Norway and Sweden are barely at stub level, and its article on Finland is not much better. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (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.