Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gan Wikipedia (2nd 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 redirect to list of Wikipedias. Flowerparty^☀ 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wikipedia

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

)

• Redirect to
  Fram (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Should
  Wu Wikipedia and the like also be deleted as well, then? Ω (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If they have no evidence of

Fram (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, isn't continuing the discussion at

WP:SNOW cover this? Ω (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No one discussed this any further after I replied there. A month later, I started an AfD for one of these articles (

Fram (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see what the rush is all about. If you give everyone a month or so to comment, it's simple enough to go back to these pages and address them then (there's a nice neat nav box and everything!). Who knows, maybe by then there will be enough content fleshed out on the pages to change your mind on deleting them... which, incidentally, is one reason why

WP:ATD

is written into the deletion policy. Besides, isn't waiting better then being accused of "kamakazie edits" and such? There are certainly good reasons to be quick about deleting things, within the general scheme of things, but I don't see any of them here.

PS.: For the record though, I would and do support redirect/merging the articles to List of Wikipedias, and since I opened my big mouth here I'll go over to the discussion and voice my support for merging/redirecting in that discussion as well. Ω (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect due to lack of sources about this website. Same as we'd do for any non-Wikipedia organization that had non-notable versions/chapters/editions. --
  Chiliad22 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect - Chiliad22 is dead right. The notability of Wikipedia is not inherited by its various sub-projects, so ones with a lack of dedicated reliable sources don't need their own articles. (Of course I'm ready to be corrected if there is a load of coverage out there I haven't found.) Olaf Davis (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all Ohm, I don't know why you have such a problem with the AfD process, but it's a fine way to bring more attention to an issue that involves the destruction of articles. I mean, that's what it's here for. The other discussion has sat nearly stagnant for a week now. It's not like there is a lively debate over there that is being hijacked with this AfD. Gigs (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my !vote... I mean "boldly redirect all of the likely non-notable ones". If there's a controversy, then we can revisit that one. Gigs (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  talk) 07:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep with at least Redirect. I think we should respect the existance of the Gan Language Website in Wikipedia. Otherwise, we may ask whether we should delete articles related to other Chinese dialects such as Cantonese, Hakka and Minnan. Ricky@36 (talk) 13:58, 21 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.