Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple English Wiktionary

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 Merge & Redirect to Wiktionary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wiktionary

No reason why this version of wikipedia meets WP:WEB Delete-- Secret ^account 19:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - you have gotten this right between vandal nominations, and I thought for a moment it was one of them! I will go out on a limb here and say we must have room for our "own" sister project on Wikipedia. Greswik (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a policy based reasoning please? Sister projects need to meet our notability guidelines as well, there is strong consensus out there that smaller wikis don't deserve an article. Secret ^account 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely right, that's what I mean by saying I'm going out on a limb, ie the reasoning is based somewhat off the normal reasoning. Greswik (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary. I can't find any significant coverage on the Simple English version; plenty of Blog mentions etc but nothing substantial. Since there isn't really information to merge, a simple redirect will suffice. Marasmusine (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a clearer explanation in the nomination, please avoid cryptic language. Tarinth (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:WEB, which is policy based. WP:CRYPTIC isn't policy based reasoning. Secret ^account 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The web notability guidelines are guidelines (not policy), and avoiding cryptic expressions simply makes Wikipedia more approachable. Tarinth (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fork of notabilty which is the most important policy guideline Secret ^account 22:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is this a joke? Majorly (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add the sources then? Secret ^account 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all a joke - notability of smaller Wikimedia projects is often debated. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Majorly Razorflame (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarinth. huji—TALK 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Wiktionary as this does indeed fail WP:WEB. "Simple English Wiktionary" gets zero Google News Archive hits. The little content there is would be better served in the Wiktionary article. RMHED (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Marasmusine and RMHED. Just being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability under WP:WEB, and no sources are provided in this article other than the subject itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. 3,249 content pages and 376 users according to statistics; clearly not among the biggest Wiktionaries. I don't see why this needs an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per RMHED. Wikimedia projects must meet the same notability standards as any other website. Mr.Z-man 20:59, 27 January 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.