Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots Wikipedia (3rd 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 Speedy Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Wikipedia

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki does not have a large amount of articles, unlike the French or Spanish wikis. TheChampionMan1234 03:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-referenced article about a notable Wikipedia. The lack of a "large number of articles" is not a valid argument for deletion, and there is no basis for comparing it to the French or Spanish Wikipedias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion; the number of articles in Scots Wikipedia is not particularly relevant to whether it deserves an article on English Wikipedia. On the other hand, its notability might reasonably be challenged, as it was in August 2007 when no sources were identified and the second AfD reached a "delete" result. However, the article now contains a solid source from Scotland on Sunday,[1] and HighBeam produced a similar, shorter one from the Daily Mirror,[2], so I guess we can say that this now passes WP:GNG, if barely. Additional references in reliable sources would obviously strengthen the case. Although Google shows a number of discussions on forums, I haven't found much else in RS sources, other than brief mentions in some Scotland guidebooks such as [3]. Additional background about Scots Wikipedia may be found at meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Scots Wikipedia, where an overwhelming consensus affirmed the legitimacy of the project and rejected an August 2011 closure proposal. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Scot I am not entirely convinced of the value of the Scots Wikipedia (as opposed to our having an article about it), but it seems like it is here to stay and the nominator's rationale is absurd. Ben Mac Dui 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination does not propose a policy based rationale for deletion. KTC (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all of the above. Nothing much to add really. --Deskford (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias - while the nomination is indeed not based in policy, since the discussion is here, I do not belive this is a sufficiently notable Wikipedia for a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep originator of current version. It has several mentions in online-discoverable UK media, specifically addressing its cultural significance. Proposer has given no valid justification, and I'm also not thrilled that I wasn't messaged regarding this proposal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2012 (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.