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 delete. — TKD::Talk 07:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was previously part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions, where the articles were kept, mainly because of the confusion caused by lumping clearly notable articles with ones of questionable notability. Meta lists this as the 207th largest Wikipedia, with only around 66 articles. More importantly though, there's is no indication that there are reliable, third-party sources. 17Drew 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Yulgunwiki may one day warrant its own article but there is no discernible reason to document another fledgling wiki.Dick G 09:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Nothing wrong with the site. The problem with it standing a chance is that is has only 110 users and no sysops as of this edit. VoltronForce 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The site itself doesn't matter much. What matters is how much coverage it has received from reliable secondary sources. And from the looks of it, there is none. 17Drew 09:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete If it gets more than the paltry 100 users, and they write lots of useful articles in the language, then it may get written about in the press or in scholarly sources, and then it will have evidence of notability. Then an article wiill have sources to allow writing an article. We should not give notability as a courtesy to all projects related in some way to Wikipedia. So far, it fails in general WP:N , as well as WP:WEB and WP:ORG. Edison 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wikipedia. 132.205.44.5 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete its a non-notable website. I believe somewhere out there a rule or something exists saying more or less that something can't be notable by association. This is a perfect case. Sasha Callahan 03:21, 15 August 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.