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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amharic Wikipedia[edit]

Amharic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable Wiki language site, article has only fewer than 1,000 articles rather than the other minor language Wiki sites. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedias as has been done for certain other Wikipedias in various languages. No independent sources have been provided to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, like all the other small Wikipedia versions without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: This article about a wikimedia project has repeatedly been the target of deletionists for whom it is challenging to assume good faith that they ar not purposefully trying to start bad inter-project feelings. See this conversation in reaction to last month's attempt: [User_talk:Fram#Your_redirection_of_articles_on_Wikimedia_projects]: "...The wikimedia foundation established wikipedias in the official languages and major languages of every nation around the globe and has always sought to foster good relations and promote their growth. While some of these may not have grown as fast as English wikipedia, we also seek to counter systemic bias in anticipation of technilogical advances in the third world..." The response was an appeal to WP:BOLD, and implied that as far as the deletionists are concerned, the third world is NOT technologically advanced, and until it is, we have no room for these articles. I know of numerous qualified editors from the third world who have lately gone on to other projects, precisely because they view English wikipedia as having lately acquired a reputation as a backwards cesspool of racist propaganda. This attempt, if continued, will also surely be discussed at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/afrophonewikis/ as expressly contrary to all our goals. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 11:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) In addition, this wikipedia project has well over 3,000 articles, in contradiction of the apparent assertion above that there are fewer than 1000. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop lying? I'm not a deletionist and don't speak for them, so there is no "as far as the deletionists are concerned" implied. My full response was "My opinion is not more glorious than that of other people, e.g. those deciding "on everyone eles's behalf" that topic X or Y should have a separate article. We have guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:N and WP:WEB, indicating when topics should have separate articles and when not. We also have Wikipedia:Be bold as one of our guiding principles. We don't create or keep articles in anticipation, we have articles after something has become notable." Could you please provide a diff where I state or even imply that "the third world is NOT technologically advanced, and until it is, we have no room for these articles." This was not my argument at all, and I would prefer if you wouldn't make such incorrect statements on my behalf. What other editors do, what other websites discuss, and so on, has no relation to this article and this AfD. To see "racist propaganda" in this AfD or in the redirection of this article is simply ridiculous. Fram (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to have escaped your attention is that the Amharic Wikipedia is actually an extremely notable subject, to anyone who is interested in the Amharic language, as well as to Wikimedia. This clearly does not include you; one may assume that you have little or no interest in that language, and hence you rather snobbishly assume that since the project isn't "notable" to YOU, hence it should not be "notable" for ANYONE else, either. What you need to do, is try looking past your own nose a little bit and realize that the globe does not revolve around you, and your personal opinions. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Nand WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG's comment in the last AfD.. "I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right." Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, that;s what i said and that;s what I think. Bending over backwards to avoid over-covering our own affairs can lead to some pretty strange decisions. This is probably the most important amharic internet project, DGG (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for that? Fram (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that it's the #1 Google hit for the Amharic word for "the" (የ)? babbage (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number one hit for De (Dutch for the) is the homepage of De Lijn, the Flemish bus transport company...[1] I don't think this is evidence that De Lijn is the most important Dutch internet project though. If you trust Google.com more than google.be, searching in Dutch gives Douwe Egberts as the first result.[2] You can't really use words like "the" "it", ... on a search engine and then use the results as evidence of anything, and certainly not to claim to anything is therefor the most important internet poroject in a language. Such claims should be made clearly by independent sources, not guessed from other results. Fram (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why you choose to keep the article? It considers that still fails WP:N. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Looks like it's notable enough to UNICEF and the African Union according to the newsletter of a South African technology research organisation. --Baba Tabita (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This whole discussion is a rehash of the topic of whether to keep certain Wikipedias. The Amharic Wikipedia has survived those discussions and gone on to slowly but consistently grow; happily, it's not going anywhere. The current page could be vastly improved, but for English speakers it's a very useful introduction to Amharic Wikipedia. I think it would be great, in fact, if the Amharic Wikipedia had a link on its front page to this article (and others in other languages). It's hard to understand how Wikipedia can consider itself not to be notable, and the Amharic Wikipedia is just a much a worthy project of the foundation as any other. Please, keep it, allow those who are interested to help improve it. babbage (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with whether Wikipedias for smaller languages may exist or not. Deleting or redirecting an article on Wikipedia does not imply that someone wants to delete the subject of the article. If Wikipedia thinks it would be useful to have pages introducing the different Wikipedia versions in English, then these pages should be hosted on either the meta website, or in the Wikipedia namespace. Using the encyclopedia namespace to host a version of "about us" pages is a clear misuse and navel-gazing of the worst kind. Fram (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Fram. Are you planning to propose the deletion of all the other articles in Category:Wikipedias by language? babbage (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously not, only those that fail WP:WEB. E.g. the German Wikipedia version is notable on its own, and so it can have a page like every other notable website. Fram (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the issue as you present it is not whether this type of article is permissible in principle—although you previously referred to such articles as "navel-gazing of the worst kind"—it's whether or not the Wikipedia in question is notable. This is precisely the issue that deletion/incubation discussions revolve around. If you're willing to keep the German Wikipedia, you should be willing to keep Amharic Wikipedia. babbage (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to keep the Amharic Wikipedia, if you (plural) can provide evidence of its notability. All the sources provided so far are either mentioning it in passing only, or are not independent. And I did not refer to such articles as "navel-gazing of the worst kind", I referred to the idea of using such articles as "a version of "about us" pages" as such. If the intent is to have an "about us" page, it should not be in the main namespace. Fram (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect unless independent sources confirm notability of the 'pedia. It is also 95% unreferenced/original research. Also the claim that it has 3,000 articles and growing is kinda misleading: it has only 895 articles over 200 characters. I myself alone wrote more text in en:w than the whole am:w. (P.S. it is not bragging, it is just a hint that this wikipedia is basically a hobby of 9 persons) - Altenmann >t 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Sheriff John Brown always hated me - for what, I'll never know. Every time I plant a seed, he say "Kill it before it grow!". I have discovered that these Bob Marley lyrics accurately describe a very real attitude out there. It actually allows people to seriously take the stance "I don't see how there is anything notable about African languages surviving, hence nobody at all would probably be interested in articles about their wikipedia projects, and if by chance they are interested, their views shouldn't even count in the matter" - and then still be able to baldfacedly deny that they are bigoted snobs or that the underlying motives for this BS are purely political. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Based on the existing content of the page, there are no reliable sources which have discussed the subject for it to be demonstrably notable as per WP:WEB, as there are no external sources listed. I would have no objections whatsoever to keeping the page were there clear evidence of notability, but there is no such evidence demonstrated on the page. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Fails WP:WEB. Click23 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2009 (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.