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. There is consensus that retaining the information now in the article is considered worthwhile, when you combine the Merge and the Keep votes. The only merge targets actually suggested were Wikipedia and List of Wikipedias. There is hardly any place to put the merged information in List of Wikipedias. Even the fact that Mindong is written using the Foochow Romanized writing system won't fit there since there's only a one-line table entry for each Wikipedia. The option of merging is still available via the consensus of editors and requires no admin action if that's what you guys want to do. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable Wikipedia edition with only 180 articles. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This makes me feel all funny. But the nom is right, I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Sorry guys Beeblbrox (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that all Wikipedias, regardless of size, are inherently notable. Besides, references probably exist in various Mondong-language sources. --Eastmain (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is not notable because in China it is blocked. And I have to confess that there's no reference to it. In mainland China all Wikipedias are blocked, and all media about Wikimedia are silenced, therefore, most people have never heard of such a wonderful thing as a "free encyclopedia". We Chinese Wikipedians, just like the first Christians in the Roman Empire, are under a lot of pressure, but we will never ever give up spreading the gospel. I hope you keep this aritcle, please, so that more and more people will get to know this good news. --GnuDoyng (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wikipedia or List of Wikipedias 70.55.89.211 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per 70.55.89.211.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It would be Anglocentric to believe that references to the entity of Wikipedia are only meaning en.wikipedia.org Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the above, and especially considering there are only a limited number of Wikipedia editions. Gary King (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While I sympathize with the impassioned pleas being made here, it amounts to a lot of "I like it" argument. However, it seems logical there be some mention of it somewhere here, so I am changing my vote to Merge per 70.55.89.211. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Wikipedias. Fails WP:WEB on its own. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 26 April 2008 (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.