Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatar 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tatar Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, Asia, Europe, Russia, and Turkey. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 04:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to copy this comment to all the AfD nominations that are of language wikis, but it feels to me like even if non-notable the information is useful to have on en.wiki. I don't feel strongly about it, but generally I would rather redirect to [[1]] (if that was possible, idk) than delete. JMWt (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'm not convinced these articles are that useful, but this mass-nomination will be very time consuming, and when you drill down the editor doesn't appear to have followed WP:BEFORE.

  Tatar Wikipedia gets a bunch of Google Scholar hits, mostly as a source of data, but some substantive, for example [2]. Sorani Kurdish Wikipedia, also nominated, is discussed in some news articles, e.g. [3][4].

  Do we have to let the entire AfD process run on these? Maybe WP:SKCRIT#3 applies ("The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided."? Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It did occur to me that there seems to be a good chance of coverage in non-English media too. JMWt (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R —siroχo 06:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggested a redirect to the wikimedia page above, I wonder if that might be kept up-to-date more regularly than the one you suggest on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect I'm happy with either of the options, probably leaning a bit towards @Siroxo's proposal as it's a more informative list for the reader. I did a few pageview analyses, and a couple of users search for these language wikis each day so they're not without their audience. Oblivy (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect is the right choice. No need for a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I took a quick look at the Tatar version of this Wikipedia page and checked through the sources cited, of the 8 total listed, 4 of them were from websites that did not appear to be affiliated with Wikipedia, I wasn't able to verify what exactly was said within the articles as I do not speak Tatar nor does the Google Translate extension for translating websites work with the Tatar language (despite the fact that Google Translate does support English to Tatar translations and vice versa) So that is why I would have to say keep it instead and pull sources from the Tatar page. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 14:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't help but notice that when one clicks on List of Wikipedias, the very reasonable alternative to deletion offered above, the first thing one is presented with is a banner placed almost a year ago complaining that the article is too long and asking that it be broken up into sub-articles. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been working on the length for the last several days. It's much better now. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This looks like the start to a good article. Also, when writing about Wikipedia, using Wikipedia as a source is allowed. As stated in WP:NOTSOURCE:Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thank you, there is a big potential into turning the article into big and good one. Just look at its Russian version to see how it can go. Russian version is more elaborated, but still a way smaller that it deserves to be. It is just a matter of time. Tatar Wikipedia (and Bashkir) are outstanding in a way how it is promoted among "regular" people. There are not many Wikipedias that have support from mass media, state insitutions, including scientific institutions. Tatar Wikipedia (and Bashkir) are viewed as a way to preserve language and culture, and lot of efforts were made into that. BTW, note the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigrannies that was saved from AFD just today. -- ssr (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can tell that the "Keep" votes stem from the fact that the debate is about over an article about an edition of Wikipedia, and like Pokémon, you gotta catch 'em all. —theMainLogan (t•c) 01:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC) 21:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I said "keep" below but I don't understand your comment. Perhaps you could explain more simply for people like me who have never played Pokemon or read any delete proposals for other language Wikipedias. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bing Translator has Tartar but as far as I know you have to copy/paste the text and manually select Tartar in the drop down list. It translate the first section as "Tatar Wikipedia (lat. tat. Tatar Wikipediase) is the Tatar-language section of Wikipedia. In terms of the number of articles among Wikipedia in Turkic languages, Turkish ranks second only to Wikipedia. It opened on September 15, 2003, and originally operated with only the Latin alphabet. Today, the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets are used in tatar Wikipedia on equal rights. [1] The majority-accepted name of the Tatar language section - "Tatar Wikipedia" - states only the language of writing articles, not that it belongs to any ethnic group or state." Chidgk1 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now as tedious to translate the Tartar version at present. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep immediately. One of the most active participators and promoters of Tatar Wikipedia is Farhad Fatkullin, Wikimedian of the Year 2018. Tatar Wikipedia is one of the most developing, mass-promoted and outstanding language editions of Wikipedia in languages of Russia. There is vast press coverage about it, and also academic coverage can be found. The article is just old and small, it has to be just expanded, not deleted. --ssr (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  P. S. I have added more sources -- ssr (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2023 (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.