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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bambara Wikipedia[edit]

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

Written like an advert,plus lack of sources claiming notability. The ChampionMan 1234 10:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "written like an advert"? (I just removed "the free online encyclopedia") All of the information comes from Andrew Lih's book on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked into this online. While there is a Bambara language with possibly 4 million speakers, there may not be an official Bambara Wikipedia. What is there is very barebones. If the proponents of this version want to pursue this, they must go through proper channels. I urge them to do this, as any language with a certain number of speakers should have the right to have their own Wikipedia version. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bambara Wikipedia is bare bones but it... indeed exists and has existed. It's not in an incubator. The reference I used documents that it exists (unfortunately I don't think the text is available as a preview on Google Books). What I will concede is that so far Andrew Lih's book is the only secondary source here. Kasper Souren, who started this Wikipedia, made an update on his blog http://guaka.org/2008/06/24/200-articles-in-the-bambara-wikipedia but this is published by him, so it's a primary source. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page on the Harvard Law School website by Kevin Discroll that talks about the Bambara Wikipedia: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/driscoll/2005/04/27/ - but I don't know if this also counts as a primary source and whether it is usable.

Kasper Souren discusses the "one year later" here on Wikimania: http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KS2 (this would be primary)

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpollard:: You're seriously arguing that this isn't a real Wikipedia? How is it that my universal log-in works there?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will change my vote to keep, because I found my universal logon got me there. However, I have run into places claiming to be Wikipedia that are in no way associated with it. I think part of the confusion is how other languages appear in Wikipedia main pages. They are in their language and it is difficult to find some of them if you do not know how they are pronounced or spelled. Bill Pollard (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpollard: - For future reference, there's a complete [official] list at the meta wiki here: meta:List of Wikipedias. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I copied this link to my sandbox. This will make it easier in the future to determine whether a system is a part of Wikipedia. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found significant coverage in an article written by Noam Cohen of The New York Times. I also found a 2013 journal article that briefly discusses the state of the Bambara Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is discussed at length in Lih's book, which is probably enough to satisfy the GNG. Add that to Cohen's NYT article, which does discuss this Wikipedia at length, and I don't think there's any question but that the Wikipedia meets the GNG. I'd also like to note explicitly that, contra nom's statement, "lack of sources claiming notability" is not a deletion criterion. Lack of existence of sources establishing notability is one, but the sources don't need to "claim" notability. Their existence is part of what establishes notability. I'm thinking nom has this confused with some CSD, but perhaps not. Also, "written like an advert" is definitely not a deletion criterion. Not in any way whatsoever.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - (edit conflict) Well, it's certainly lacking sources. How often is notability considered to be established (such that an article is merited) after a good faith search yields only two? All of the coverage furthermore seems to stem from a single event: Souren/Geekcorps and the $1 per article competition/promotion. I don't think many of us would be fighting for keeping this article if it were about some little for-profit tech startup for which only two reliable sources could be found, both of which talked about the company for one particular promotion. For those reasons it feels a little hypocritical to !vote keep. Nonetheless, a weak keep from me: (a) the two sources are solid; (b) there are some other weaker sources out there, like a few hits on Ethan Zuckerman's blog (who is connected to Geekcorps); and (c) there's good reason to believe there are a number of reliable non-English sources out there given the involvement of multiple notable organizations. I've left a message for Guaka hoping he may be able to provide additional refs. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NYT ok? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/arts/26wiki.html?pagewanted=print Guaka (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding it! It is one of the sources already used. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We have a precedent for articles on other Wiki versions, so I believe it would be an example of our systematic bias if we were to get rid of this one.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above reasons and per WP:BIAS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:23, 7 April 2014 (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.