Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yiddish 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 keep. In the sense of "not delete"; there's no consensus whether to redirect or retain as a separate article, but that can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish Wikipedia

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

Non-notable Internet encyclopedia with <10,000 articles. All coverage is from Wikimedia projects. There are some external links, but they don't form enough content to justify an article. These can be used as sources on Wikipedia or possibly List of Wikipedias. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any chance at all of this being deleted at AfD, and I'd encourage the nominator to read WP:BEFORE more carefully. You could make an argument that "Yiddish Wikipedia" doesn't deserve its own article and it ought to redirect to "List of Wikipedias", but the idea that it doesn't even deserve a redirect will not wash.
If you wanted to create a redirect, though, then AfD is not the right place to do that. You don't need admin tools to convert something to a redirect, all you need is WP:BRD (and if you're reverted, take it to the talk page). So the AfD process is unnecessary.
There's also another consideration: the Yiddish Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, and they're the people who pay the bills around here. It's better to shake the hand that feeds you than to bite it.
My recommendation is speedy close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is at least one reliable source discussing the Yiddish Wikipedia, in English: [1], and apparently some in other languages as well. (I would disagree with S Marshall about whether it is acceptable to take articles about Wikimedia Foundation projects to AfD. Just being part of the Foundation doesn't make a project notable. Other Wikimedia projects need to be notable under WP:WEB to justify having articles about them.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. We shouldn't make it hard for anyone who searches for the Yiddish Wikipedia on this one to find it. However, we shouldn't have a full article on a project that doesn't meet our notability standards for websites. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia and perm-prot. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a distintintive one with a good deal to be said about it . I;'ll look for some more sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have to agree with User:S Marshall. There is obviously some news coverage outside of Wikipedia itself. (And, by the way, it certainly was interesting to read that the Yi-wikipedia has some 49 active editors, and that they mostly write about Hasidic rabbis... ) Vmenkov (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all Wikipedias in other languages should be worthy of their own articles. Dew Kane (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Significant coverage in reliable sources? No evidence of that. All I can see so far is one opinion piece in Forward. We should be very careful not to hold wikimedia websites to a lower standard of notability than other sites. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2010 (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.