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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bashkortostan literature[edit]

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

WP:TNT This is MT from the WP:ru, and is not understandable as English. It is therefore of zero value, until someone perhaps makes a translation into real English. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be preserved. Perhaps there are errors in grammar and spelling. The article presents some encyclopedic value. It should be preserved.

Yours sincerely, Ayratayrat — Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is notable. Cleanup and copyedit is content-level, AfD is topic-level. -- GreenC 17:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bashkirian literature at Google Books. It goes by various names (Bashkirs, Bashkir, Bashkiria..). One example cite: "Tatar and Bashkir literary works constitute a particularly rich body of indigenous historical sources of Inner Asia, particularly for the nineteenth and twentieth centuries"[1]. -- GreenC 18:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you know it is notable? Perhaps it is, but there is zero evidence of that here. And are you suggesting that text like this can be "copy-edited"? How would that be done, exactly? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bashkir literature is a real thing as evidenced by numerous books in Google Books. -- GreenC 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreadable gibberish. This has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the machine translation and added reliable sources that establish Bakshirian literature is a notable topic. It's a stub, but that can be fixed by expansion not deletion. -- GreenC 15:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and re-expand from stub. The Russian Wikipedia article is lengthy and seems reasonably well-sourced (though I don't read Russian, so I can't guarantee the sources), and the machine-translated fragment of that article which we had here was marginally more understandable than previous participants here have allowed. However, having said that, we would do better with either a fresh translation by someone with the ability and inclination to do it properly or alternatively a probably shorter article based on other sources. PWilkinson (talk) 17:54, 27 March 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.