Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Knowledge (XXG) language editions

4506:

think they are very useful and most projects are not exactly like wikipedia, just about the only thing they all have in common is neutral point of view, some accept fair use others not, some require preview before save others dont etc etc and many combinations. as for enciclopedia libre, thats differant from the spanish language wikipedia they are two differant websites, EL is not associated with esWP in the least. the statistic pages offer just that, but the article pages offer information on milestones for any given wikipedia edition which a research would definatly want to find out, so would a reporter, or a student writing a paper. keep all. sure they start off as small stat pages, but they grow like any other article.qrc2006/email 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) STRONG KEEP

4797:

Knowledge (XXG) etc. are its cities. For the same reasoning, all cities of all countries should be deleted as well. Then we should go on for mass deletion of all human beings that are from the same family. Such as George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and all those other Bushes should be united under "Bush family" article. It wouldn't be right. Knowledge (XXG) is the name of this family, and the family name of all Knowledge (XXG) family members. Turkish, Indonesian, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish etc. are our first names. --

3834:- although I understand why users are complaining about this mass nomination, I do think that the nominator was correct to nominate all of these together. Logic dictates that either foreign-language Wikipediae in general deserve their own articles, or they do not. The only exception to this would be if some of them have appeared in the news (making them the subject of multiple non-trivial independent sources per 3740:-language Knowledge (XXG) (they might be more notable in themselves), but others are not - commenters will focus in on the most or least deletable of them. I suggest that instead of nominating them all, you nominate a borderline case, like maybe the Japanese Knowledge (XXG), and see how that goes. And yes, for the ones that aren't kept, cross namespace move is preferable to delete. 4415:

least, I'd say "Non-English Knowledge (XXG)" should be a section or article on its own, but I'd prefer each article be separate anyway, not just a table or list. And even if a case could be made for substance being necessary, with so many nominations, it's difficult to say which ones do meet that requirement. Checking them will be quite the burden.

4700:. There is no way you can tell the story of 200+ wikipedia language versions in a single Knowledge (XXG) article. If you look at some of these language articles they talk about specific things not common on other wikipedias, and a lot of the ones I looked at provide a lot more information than simply statistics. I'd love all of them to stay. -- 4628:. Since most of these articles provide nothing more than minor statistics such as inception date and number of articles, the data would be best handled in a table format in one article. The exceptions and special notes are few enough that they could be handled below such a table. The main article 4518:

and possibly delete the ones that do not yet have any content. The articles on the two non-en ones I know best had relevant things to say--some of which I knew and some of which I didn't, and all of which would have been helpful to know ahead of time. Having the material conveniently available here

4162:

If you actually tried to research these individual versions of Knowledge (XXG), I would say that almost all of them would be notable. There may be several exceptions, but keep in mind that ntability for these Wikipediae should be based upon coverage by media worldwide; no english coverage for the

3509:

I don't think these can just be deleted. Some of these variants of Knowledge (XXG) (perhaps most importantly the German one) are notable in their own right, because of ways in which they differ from the rest of Knowledge (XXG). Some of them are only notable because of the notability of Knowledge

4505:

definatly keep all, the arguement doesnt make any sense, and they cant be all merged into the wikipedia article beacsue its too long and policy itself will eventually make the article's longest sections be splintered off, the english wikipedia article is quite long, as is the german one, i really

4414:

Obviously Knowledge (XXG) is notable enough for its own article. Thus it is important to document it. These foreign language parts of Knowledge (XXG) are also important to document. Now maybe the quality/content of these articles is minimal, but that doesn't mean any should be deleted. At the

3966:. This solution also allows for individual language versions that fail notability standards on their own to be redirected to an article within the encyclopedia, thereby reducing the animosity which is sure to be perceived by some who won't understand why <insert favorite language version: --> 4796:

I agree with Yamaguchi on mass nominating things. Actually, it would be fun to nominate all cities of all countries for mass deletion and then ask "how about putting them all in the country's article?". If Knowledge (XXG) is a country, English Knowledge (XXG), German Knowledge (XXG), Italian

4084:, possibly renominating some individually. Valid forks from the main article, and clearly English and German Wikipedias (for example) would be notable at any rate. I'd consider moving some of the smaller Wikipedias into a list article, but a mass nom like this isn't the place to do it. 4771:

A single AfD for projects ranging from hundreds of thousands of articles to merely hundreds is way too broad. Some of the projects (eg the German one) are significant enough for an entire page. Is there any main-space info about the (no longer wikimedia associated) Klingon wikipedia?

3484:

If the social structure of individual Knowledge (XXG) isn't notable, then why has the social structure of particular Wikipedias been covered in the press? When the New York Times covers AfD debates, they're covering the social structure of just one of the projects, as no project has

4519:

is extremely helpful. The material about the individual sites available on the individual sites does not necessarily pass COI, but these articles do.--Furthermore, the information on the different interpretaions of N and V and other policies is very relevant to discussions here.

3863:

for details), and because it has published books. Probably some of the others have also been in the news in countries where their language is widely spoken. Others haven't, and I'm not in favor of keeping those. But this nomination would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

4000:

per above. "Knowledge (XXG) is notable as a whole and individual language versions are not". Ascertaining this would be a research project requiring knowledge of numerous languages. Surely, Knowledge (XXG) is notable in part because it is available in so many languages?

4150:. Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper encyclopedia. Many of the non-English wikipedias are large enough to be notable, and have very different policies and styles than the English edition. Perhaps merge all non-English wikipedias of size <10k as a compromise? 4332:

I agree some of the articles, as they are now, should be deleted. The Slovenian, Luxembourgish, Malay articles tell nothing but dry statistics, and there are many more in that category. But any article that tells the actual story of the site should be

3908:. Some, like English wikipedia, absolutely need an article and as it is about the 10th most popular site on the internet it clearly doesnt fail the notability test. If any of the otehrs need deleting it should be doen on a case by case basis. Also 3762:

should be sufficient as an example of a fairly long article about a Knowledge (XXG) that is clearly notable enough in its own right. I don't really see the benefit of deleting such articles, moving them out of article space, or merging them.

3431:

and has also been discussed on national television etc. Also, the different language editions of Knowledge (XXG) are usually not just translations of each other but largely independent projects with different editors and different audiences.

3937:

Per above. Though some are self reference or not written in an encyclopedic tone, I believe most of them are notable on their own merit (except iff you count only English mentions, though I would reject such interpretations). Otherwise

3573:

Project space isn't for encyclopedia articles, and Meta isn't an encyclopedia. The question is whether any of these websites is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and some of them are. Cool Cat's claim above that the article

4372:. The Statistics page has more information than many of the articles. Nearly all of them are stubs. However, if the articles aren't deleted then I reccommend that they should be imported to meta or moved to project name space. -- 4368:: I created two of these articles but I don't think that we should keep them. I only created them because they were red links in the template. My primary vote (which is not actually a vote) here is to delete them from 3637:

No, not project space. They have no business at all in project space, which is for housekeeping tasks of English Knowledge (XXG), not for encyclopedic content. Merging the ones that are too nonnotable to meet

3213:

Also the statistics are interesting to read an explanation of the development of each project (better than the statistics page which can be quite confusing). I don't see any reason to delete those articles.--

4191:. I am not going to go through each of the nominations here, but considering that in many cases Knowledge (XXG) is the largest encyclopedia in existence for that language, I would say that they are notable. 4593:

It may be best to merge all of these articles into one main article. They should be kept, but as one main article listing all the different languages Knowledge (XXG) exists in. --19:21, 20 February 2007

3708:

to preserve those of value. Some of these certainly are AfD-worthy debates, but the global AfD won't address those. Better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail, right? :-) -

4100:. Moreover, statistics in foreign languages don't do English-speakers much good. Finally, these pages are useful in encouraging multi-lingual readers to contribute to the other Wikis. -- 3838:), but I can't see that this is substantially the case. I'm not certain whether these articles merit deletion or not, but either all of them should be deleted or they should all be kept. 4068:

and assess from there. Most of them are crap and would fail all the reasonable notability guidelines. The rest of them are essentially duplicating information which should be housed in

3231:

A wiki reaching 10,000 articles or 50,000 articles isnt all that notable and easy to read on a graph. How many admins/users/edits/articles a wiki currently has can be accessed via

374: 369: 4427:

In a way it feels un-necessary with these kind of articles, but this is one of the better ones of these types......Turkish Knowledge (XXG), Icelandic Knowledge (XXG) and so on.

3164:

Most of the articles do not go any further than providing minor statistics. Such statistics are derived from various tools such as toolserv already available for public use.

378: 3924:

its simply not ruth members in my wikipedia are not members in the wikipedia comunity. we see ourselves as a difrent comunity, diferent in mindset and diferent in laguge--

361: 2444: 2439: 3670:

If they're encylopedic content we have no business deleting them in the first place :) If they're not, I think they're fine in project space or perhaps on meta? --

2536: 2531: 2448: 2540: 1984: 1979: 3550:

I'm not convinced these should be documented seperately in article space, but there's no need to throw them out either. Sandstein's idea is a good one imho. --

2431: 1988: 3157:

I see no reason to have articles for individual language editions of Knowledge (XXG). None of them are particularly notable and they're all part of one site:

2523: 4801: 4788: 4776: 4761: 4736: 4720: 4704: 4692: 4661: 4649: 4620: 4604: 4585: 4573: 4561: 4549: 4537: 4525: 4497: 4481: 4464: 4419: 4406: 4394: 4376: 4357: 4320: 4307: 4243: 4216: 4200: 4183: 4171: 4154: 4142: 4130: 4116: 4104: 4088: 4076: 4060: 4048: 4036: 4022: 4010: 3992: 3971: 3946: 3928: 3916: 3900: 3889: 3875: 3842: 3826: 3808: 3793: 3779: 3767: 3744: 3726: 3712: 3674: 3665: 3632: 3623: 3601: 3568: 3554: 3542: 3518: 3493: 3479: 3452:

In a blunt way to put it: every language version is an online encyclopedia. Knowledge (XXG) is notable as a whole and individual language versions are not.

3447: 3418: 3396: 3363: 3349: 3335: 3315: 3288: 3261: 3226: 3186: 59: 4612:

I reject the notion that we can use the web measuring sites to measure how notable a non-English language site is how can we judge how well-trafficed the

3042: 3037: 2260: 2255: 2076: 2071: 1971: 1938: 1933: 1570: 1565: 282: 277: 4072:. If that article is too large, possibly there can be a mass merge of statistics etc. to another page, but as it stands we have a lot of Wikipediacruft. 4512:-- the indiscriminate mass-nomination format of this AFD does very little to clarify issues, or lead to useful discussion. 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4112:. These articles are not only notable, but they are also useful for Knowledge (XXG) users who want to visit a Knowledge (XXG) of a different language. 3510:(XXG) as a whole, and could perhaps be deleted. But I suspect that many of them have information which, if they are to be deleted, should be merged to 3172: 3046: 2904: 2899: 2628: 2623: 2264: 2122: 2117: 2080: 1942: 1708: 1703: 1574: 1478: 1473: 1432: 1427: 972: 967: 512: 507: 286: 98: 93: 3423:

My point is that the Finnish Knowledge (XXG) may be independently notable as it has been the subject of articles in newspapers and magazines such as

2908: 2632: 2306: 2301: 2126: 1712: 1662: 1657: 1482: 1436: 1202: 1197: 1156: 1151: 1018: 1013: 976: 742: 737: 650: 645: 516: 144: 139: 102: 4224:. Overbroad blanket nomination. Many of these clearly meet notability criteria on their own, so I can't say delete to all. If there are those that 3088: 3083: 3029: 2858: 2853: 2720: 2715: 2674: 2669: 2490: 2485: 2352: 2347: 2310: 2247: 2168: 2163: 2063: 1925: 1892: 1887: 1800: 1795: 1666: 1616: 1611: 1557: 1206: 1160: 1064: 1059: 1022: 926: 921: 746: 696: 691: 654: 604: 599: 558: 553: 420: 415: 328: 323: 269: 148: 4616:

is, e.g., because only 50,000 people speak Kashubian and Kashubian speakers form a majority in no country (by which most trackers track traffic).

4390:

or any similar title. The articles are too short to keep. When we have enough data about a certain article we would create an article about it. --

3092: 2996: 2991: 2891: 2862: 2766: 2761: 2724: 2678: 2615: 2582: 2577: 2494: 2356: 2214: 2209: 2172: 2109: 1896: 1804: 1754: 1749: 1695: 1620: 1465: 1419: 1340: 1335: 1248: 1243: 1110: 1105: 1068: 959: 930: 834: 829: 700: 608: 562: 499: 466: 461: 424: 332: 236: 231: 190: 185: 85: 3381:

specifically is quite well known in Finland and it has received wide press coverage. However, this is currently not explained in the article. --

4044:

If English Knowledge (XXG) is notable (and it is) so should others be. The problem may be keeping them up to date, but should we not try to?

3000: 2770: 2586: 2398: 2393: 2293: 2218: 2030: 2025: 1846: 1841: 1758: 1649: 1386: 1381: 1344: 1294: 1289: 1252: 1189: 1143: 1114: 1005: 880: 875: 838: 788: 783: 729: 637: 470: 365: 240: 194: 131: 4167:

does not, by any means, preclude it from notability. Notability might also be established by these Wikipediae's connections with Wikimedia.

4316:

No, you're over estimating this AfD. Jimmy is independently notable as a businessman, etc, and so is Angela as an co-founder of Wikia. --

3171:), that information should probably moved interwiki to meta/wikinews/whatever. The details about the infamous block is already explained in 3075: 2950: 2945: 2845: 2812: 2807: 2707: 2661: 2477: 2402: 2339: 2155: 2034: 1879: 1850: 1787: 1603: 1390: 1298: 1051: 913: 884: 792: 683: 591: 545: 407: 315: 3126: 2983: 2954: 2816: 2753: 2569: 2201: 1741: 1524: 1519: 1327: 1235: 1097: 821: 453: 223: 177: 3514:. So, I think anyone who wants to delete them is going to have a lot of work on their hands sorting out the useful from the unnecessary. 4255:

is notable at least and while relatively unsourced, there seems to be enough there for a full article rather than cramming it back into

2385: 2017: 1833: 1528: 1373: 1281: 867: 775: 3538:

back to article space and develop as articles, while the others could be left in project space to report statistics, events and such.

3340:

I disagree. People should review the 66 articles link here. They can vote/discuss on which ones too keep and which ones to delete. --

2937: 2799: 17: 2435: 1511: 357: 3822:

contain notable information, and while some may be stubs that list only statistics, quite a few provide encycolpedic information.

4641: 3646:, while keeping separate the ones that are notable enough is a good idea. So is moving English-version-specific information from 2527: 4756: 3117: 3851:

the case that some of them have appeared in the news, making them the subject of multiple non-trivial independent sources per

1975: 4138:. I suggest we simply merge them all into an article entitled "Versions of Knowledge (XXG)" or something in that direction. 3628:

Exactly. Move them all to project space, and then anything enyclopedic and relevant can be merged into the main article. --

23: 4239: 3611: 4445: 4288: 3300:. A few of these, such as those mentioned by Xtv, are quite notable and deserve their own article. Others probably fail 4816: 3033: 2427: 2251: 2067: 1929: 1561: 273: 43: 3134: 4228:

meet the standards, even after very much checking, they should be moved to Project: namespace rather than deleted. --

2895: 2619: 2519: 2113: 1699: 1469: 1423: 963: 503: 89: 4687: 2297: 1967: 1653: 1193: 1147: 1009: 733: 641: 135: 4353:'s technical issues? Really, these need to be tried seperately, not as a whole. If nothing else, in groups. -- 3442: 3391: 3330: 3079: 2849: 2711: 2665: 2481: 2343: 2159: 1883: 1791: 1607: 1055: 917: 687: 595: 549: 411: 319: 4815:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3818:

Some of those articles deserve to be deleted but many are valid and informative. Also, many of these articles

42:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3839: 2987: 2757: 2573: 2205: 1745: 1331: 1239: 1101: 825: 457: 227: 181: 4018:

per discussion. Surely you're joking - Knowledge (XXG) for $ language is not notable to Knowledge (XXG)?! --

56: 4416: 3025: 2389: 2243: 2059: 2021: 1921: 1837: 1553: 1377: 1285: 871: 779: 265: 4124:

since it was awarded a state prize last year for being a top educational website in the Russian language.

4613: 4346: 4164: 3354:

A though, we could have two noms. One for the tiny pages (a paragraph or two) and one for larger ones. --

2941: 2887: 2803: 2611: 2105: 1691: 1461: 1415: 955: 495: 81: 3986: 3886: 3789: 3722: 3619: 3564: 3475: 3458:. Statistics on articles about individual language versions will become outdated in a matter of seconds. 3414: 3359: 3345: 3257: 3182: 4260: 2289: 1645: 1515: 1185: 1139: 1001: 725: 633: 127: 3885:. Choose a number (such as 50,000) and delete the Wikipedias that don't have more articles than this. 3284: 3222: 4006: 4746: 4350: 4342: 4268: 4264: 4252: 3736:. Mass nominations are discouraged for a reason. Many of these are quite deletable, at least in the 3651: 3378: 3245: 3241: 3204: 3196: 3168: 3071: 2841: 2703: 2657: 2473: 2335: 2151: 1875: 1783: 1599: 1047: 909: 679: 587: 541: 403: 311: 4750: 4617: 4431: 4195: 4139: 3786: 3719: 3616: 3561: 3489:

the same AfD policies and voting tendancies. Every Knowledge (XXG) is different in many ways. --

3472: 3460:

The social structure of any language wikipedia isn't notable, such a thing would also fail to meet

3411: 3356: 3342: 3254: 3179: 4601: 3759: 3531: 3249: 3208: 2979: 2749: 2565: 2197: 1737: 1323: 1231: 1093: 817: 449: 219: 173: 4451: 4441: 4294: 4284: 4097: 4045: 3455: 3320:

I agree, these should be nominated separately, some of them may not be notable but others are. --

3237: 3232: 3200: 2381: 2013: 1829: 1369: 1277: 863: 771: 4673:

mass noms. Keep all articles and indivisually nominate each article which may fail guidelines.

3741: 4235: 4101: 3805: 3424: 36:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3958:, oppose mass deletion. Ideally, all of these can be noted in a subarticle linked under the 3801: 3272: 2933: 2795: 4729: 3981: 3925: 3912:

is 53KB and therefore it wouldnt be practicable to merge any useful info into this article,

3855:. The German Knowledge (XXG), for example, was all over the news in Germany in light of the 3428: 3852: 3835: 3701: 3639: 3527: 3461: 3301: 1507: 4633: 4168: 4019: 4002: 4030:. All are notable, appear in local media, have social impact... What else do you want? -- 3775:

against the global deletion but feel free to renominate the useless ones individually. --

3704:

would accept some and reject others, so the macro-AfD would have to result in an overall

3465: 3275:

is quite difficult to read for me, better if there is a page in English explaining it.--

4681: 4582: 4192: 4180: 4125: 3968: 3913: 3870: 3660: 3596: 3539: 3310: 4767: 4717: 4151: 4073: 3943: 3860: 3856: 3671: 3629: 3551: 3438: 3387: 3326: 3280: 3218: 4570: 4546: 4354: 4317: 4230: 4113: 4057: 3823: 3717:

Can you be a bit more specific? Which ones you precisely believe should be kept? --

3709: 3490: 4629: 4256: 4069: 3959: 3909: 3647: 3643: 3607: 3587: 3575: 3511: 3406: 3402: 3158: 3109: 3063: 3017: 2971: 2925: 2879: 2833: 2787: 2741: 2695: 2649: 2603: 2557: 2511: 2465: 2419: 2373: 2327: 2281: 2235: 2189: 2143: 2097: 2051: 2005: 1959: 1913: 1867: 1821: 1775: 1729: 1683: 1637: 1591: 1545: 1499: 1453: 1407: 1361: 1315: 1269: 1223: 1177: 1131: 1085: 1039: 993: 947: 901: 855: 809: 763: 717: 671: 625: 579: 533: 487: 441: 395: 349: 303: 257: 211: 165: 119: 4474: 4345:, how will anyone know it was started by a university? Without an article on the 3454:

Statistics of any language version is indeed interesting and can be presented at

4798: 4773: 4701: 4478: 4391: 4373: 4280: 4085: 3515: 4658: 4558: 4534: 4403: 4349:, how will anyone know about the changing language policies, or similarly the 4213: 3898: 3776: 4784:

and pass legislation against these inherently problematic mass nominations.

4477:

worry about. Besides, deleting a page doesn't actually free up server space.

3276: 3214: 4733: 4675: 4632:

is large enough that such a merged article should be a separate article. --

4032: 3865: 3753: 3695: 3655: 3591: 3559:

I feel meta would be a better place for such articles. Meta is underused. --

3305: 4386:: Merge all articles (except may be the German one) into one article named 4521: 4494: 3433: 3382: 3321: 4728:. Every national Knowledge (XXG) is a national domain and a standalone 3764: 3784:

I do not have that kind of patience or time to spend on bureaucracy --

4402:

but some of them could be nominated individually. Agree with Zanium.

4279:- If we delete all those interwikis, then we must also delete the 4809:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

4600:

there is always something special about each language edition!

4440:

Is there a lack of server space for deleting those articles? --

4366:

Delete all OR Move to meta OR Move to Knowledge (XXG) name space

4016:

Speedy Keep/Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion

3654:(which is definitely one of the ones that should be kept). — 3590:

is exclusively about the English-language Knowledge (XXG). —

24:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Scots Knowledge (XXG)

65:

Articles on individiual Knowledge (XXG) language editions

3207:

explains it was the first to have non-english articles,

4785: 4473:

Server space is one of those things you should let the

3167:

In the case of several of these articles (most notably

3142: 3138: 3130: 3122: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3013: 3009: 3005: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1035: 1031: 1027: 989: 985: 981: 943: 939: 935: 897: 893: 889: 851: 847: 843: 805: 801: 797: 759: 755: 751: 713: 709: 705: 667: 663: 659: 621: 617: 613: 575: 571: 567: 529: 525: 521: 483: 479: 475: 437: 433: 429: 391: 387: 383: 345: 341: 337: 299: 295: 291: 253: 249: 245: 207: 203: 199: 161: 157: 153: 115: 111: 107: 3935:

Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion.

4710: