Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical Chinese Wikipedia (2nd nomination)

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Chinese Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of notability, should again be redirected Fram (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. Fram (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I think notability or lack thereof will become apparent once the OR is fixed. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep & Shorten or Draftify -~~ The article seems to be well written, the problem is there is too much unsourced information, we should either draftify it, or keep it & stubify it. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per previous and similar AfD, it seems entirely in keeping with en.wiki to include information about other WM projects. Other language Wikipedias are highly likely to have sources covering their existence in the local language. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more than 300 language versions (plus many wiktionaries, wikivoyages, wikiquotes, ...), many of them extremely obscure. Without actual evidence that these sources exist? The previous AfD was from 2008, our sourcing requirements are thankfully a lot less lax than back then, and apparently the sources haven't appeared in those 15 years... The page is about the worst kind of navel-gazing one can find on enwiki. There is no reason to exclude websites based on lack of presented coverage, except when they are WMF projects. No promo/free webdirectory for you, only promo/free webdirectory for us? Fram (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Welcome to Wikipedia. It's not a democracy folks. JMWt (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - How so? That's pretty well-established. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Each and every source that discusses the Classical Chinese Wikipedia is a primary source. Also, the article mainly consists of in-house affairs that fail to show the relevance of the Classical Chinese Wikipedia to the outside world, in line with the rationale of MOS:INUNIVERSE. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - every source is a primary source (even some user pages!), unless some better coverage can be found I'd say it fails WP:GNG. Lewcm Talk to me! 20:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a reasonable WP:ATD for a not independently notable edition of a notable project. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I specifically see no reason to draftity, in that nobody has argued convincingly for WP:NEXIST. Geschichte (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'll just mention that a lot of other language Wikipedias have been nominated at AFD over the past few months and many of those discussions have been closed with a decision to Redirect to the article suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - I redact my !vote above & support redirecting the page to List of Wikipedias as a reasonable WP:ATD. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure if it would possible to move these articles to the Wikipedia namespace? 94rain ^Talk 06:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a project of this size is unlikely to be notable and no sources contributing to notability have been presented. The article consists of extremely quickly dated primary source statistics and niche inner community workings that only show existence. There is no analysis of impact of the Wikipedia on the Classical Chinese language. There is no consensus on en.wiki that we evaluate articles on Wikipedia outside normal notability guidelines (indeed, some worry Wikipedia-based articles are acts of navel-gazing). — Bilorv (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per Liz's relisting comment. Duckmather (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify as the subject is notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2023 (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.