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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Wikipedia

[edit]

Non-notable article. "Merge" anything useful (not available with ku:Special:Statistics (which isn't even fully translated)) to Wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles on Wikipedias in other languages are quite helpful for the Wikipedia community. --Ali 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then move it to meta. "Wikipedia community needs it" is not an acceptable inclusion criteria. -- Cat ^chi? 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable website. Wikipedias are not automatically notable. Picaroon 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per m:Eventualism this article has good potential even if it is not asserting notability now. Wikipedias do not automatically meet WP:N but given the specific situation of kurdish and the Kurdish people, their language version is pretty special - if small... Witty lama 01:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So... you oppose deleting articles that don't meet our inclusion criteria, on the chance that they'll be better some day? Picaroon 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If and when it becomes notable, it can be recreated. AfD isnt a deletion sanction. We are discussing the subjects current state. By the way, this is a proposal to delete "Kurdish Wikipedia" article, not the actual "Kurdish Wikipedia" itself. -- Cat ^chi? 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do oppose deleting articles about topics that are on their way to notability. If it propves not to be notable, then is the time to remove it. DGG 05:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's on its way to notability? Picaroon 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and set up some kind of policy for listing all the various language Wikipedias. Maybe that'll stop these borderline disruptive nominations. FrozenPurpleCube 05:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should set up a policy for deleting non-notable websites - oh yeah, we have one. Picaroon 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't notable? But I've heard about it in the news. Does that mean we have to delete the whole site, or just the article on it? Seriously though, documenting Wikipedia is reasonable. This includes the foreign language versions. Thus I'd prefer a proposal on how to do so over these seemingly endless nominations. This is for full coverage, NPOV and because most of the foreign language versions are likely more covered in their native languages, and not English, making covering them difficult, but still important. FrozenPurpleCube 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...and "isn't even fully translated" is not a reason. --Killaruna | talk 2 me! 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it is. It shows how much "complete" the language edition is. -- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets all criteria, WP is WP:NOT paper. Yet another Kurdish article up for deletion, is anyone surprised? Carlossuarez46 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does the Kurdish language have to do with it? The site is non-notable, whether it's written in Kurdish, Igbo, or Pig Latin. Picaroon 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Wikipedia with >5000, since we have articles on German Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia and so forth. I'm not sure I agree that we should have these articles in mainspace, but we can discuss that later. YechielMan 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the German Wikipedia is in another class - it is notable, because it has been covered by multiple independent sources. This article is on a non-notable subject. In addition, when those articles are nominated for deletion people will say "but look! the Kurdish Wikipedia was kept! Speedy close!" Picaroon 21:54, 23 April 2007 (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.