Cebuano Wikipedia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I think the Cebuano Wikipedia needs a article as they are the biggest Wikipedia without article witch was deleted for a bad reason when its notable for having lots of articles Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I was tempted to close this as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. The AfD, while not well attended, was unanimous, and there's nothing in this nomination other than, I don't like the result. But, I did want to make a comment. Looking at the statistics, I see this wiki has 4 million articles, with only 160 active users and 4 admins. And, a depth score of 1.11. I'm assuming this wiki consists largely of auto-translated content from other wikis. Or is there some other explanation for those numbers? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  It's only a redirect so the article tells you how it reached that size. Visiting the wiki and pressing random page a few times also tells you, it's mostly machine generated stuff like North_Perrott -- 104.247.220.13 ( talk) 19:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  I'm having trouble parsing It's only a redirect so the article tells you how it reached that size. What's only a redirect? What article? Could you give specific URLs? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  Pre-afd version. — Cryptic 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply

  Ah, I see. Thanks. I agree that there's an interesting story here, with respect to Lsjbot (which I didn't know about before, so happy to learn something new). I'm not sure there's enough there to justify a stand-alone article about ceb.wikipedia.org, but it certainly should be mentioned at the redirect target. Instead of just pointing to List_of_Wikipedias#Detailed_list, perhaps it should point to a new section in List_of_Wikipedias which at least mentions how ceb was built. Or, maybe it should point to Lsjbot itself (although, I can't entirely get behind that idea). I actually find Lsjbot kind of a frustrating article. There's so many questions left unanswered there. The big one being whether Lsjbot is actually doing the language translation or if it's just a wrapper around some pre-existing translation tool. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, nominator merely expresses disagreement with the result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- I don't see any other way that discussion could have ended. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but Permit expansion Though the article as deleted did not meet notability , there is something interesting beyond just the number of articles. The manner in which they were created, if I remember discussions on the various lists, was by machine translation -- a few other projects than ours' have done similarly. There might well be references outside WP also.. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)` reply
  • What references exist are about the bot that created essentially the entirety of the project, not about its output. — Cryptic 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Being Filipino myself, part of me wanted the article to be kept, but as seen in the AfD, significant coverage simply does not exist for the wiki, even in Philippine sources. The consensus at the AfD, as limited as it was, was unanimous. As an aside, this discussion has become pretty snowy. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 00:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, could not have been closed any other way. I note that all of the information in the article before redirection is in the table at the target, in much better format. If more information exists, add it to the target article until there is agreement there to WP:spinout. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply
• endorse reasonable close based on both guidelines and vote count. Hobit ( talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply