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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. Flowerparty^☀ 01:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lingala Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable Wiki website, the encyclopedia has made over 1,000 articles. It could be one of the smaller Wiki sites in traditional African languages. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedias per the sentiments expressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gan Wikipedia (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Sámi Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, like all the other small Wikipedia versions without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: This article about a wikimedia project has repeatedly been the target of deletionists for whom it is challenging to assume good faith that they ar not purposefully trying to start bad inter-project feelings. See this conversation in reaction to last month's attempt: User talk:Fram#Your redirection of articles on Wikimedia projects: "...The wikimedia foundation established wikipedias in the official languages and major languages of every nation around the globe and has always sought to foster good relations and promote their growth. While some of these may not have grown as fast as English wikipedia, we also seek to counter systemic bias in anticipation of technilogical advances in the third world..." The response was an appeal to WP:BOLD, and implied that as far as the deletionists are concerned, the third world is NOT technologically advanced, and until it is, we have no room for these articles. I know of numerous qualified editors from the third world who have lately gone on to other projects, precisely because they view English wikipedia as having lately acquired a reputation as a backwards cesspool of racist propaganda. This attempt, if continued, will also surely be discussed at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/afrophonewikis/ as expressly contrary to all our goals. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 11:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • … none of which argument has anything to do with the English Wikipedia's requirement that subjects be documented in depth by multiple independent reliable sources in order to warrant stand-alone articles. If you don't make an argument that actually addresses that, citing sources, then your arguments will likely be ignored, whatever boldfaced words precede them. Cite sources. Nothing less will do. Ad hominems like the above certainly won't. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the fact that "ad hominems" are indeed irrelevant (thanks, Uncle G), they are also blatant lies. I'm not a deletionist and don't speak for them, so there is no "as far as the deletionists are concerned" implied. My full response was "My opinion is not more glorious than that of other people, e.g. those deciding "on everyone eles's behalf" that topic X or Y should have a separate article. We have guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:N and WP:WEB, indicating when topics should have separate articles and when not. We also have Wikipedia:Be bold as one of our guiding principles. We don't create or keep articles in anticipation, we have articles after something has become notable." Could you please provide a diff where I state or even imply that "the third world is NOT technologically advanced, and until it is, we have no room for these articles." This was not my argument at all, and I would prefer if you wouldn't make such incorrect statements on my behalf. What other editors do, what other websites discuss, and so on, has no relation to this article and this AfD. To see "racist propaganda" in this AfD or in the redirection of this article is simply ridiculous. Fram (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to be notable enough to be mentioned alongside the Swahili wikipedia in this 2005 conference paper published at University of Cologne, Germany, and to have OpenSearch plugins developed for it by Mycroft. --Baba Tabita (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it gets a passing mention, and an opensource plugin. How does this meet WP:WEB? "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."? Fram (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2009 (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.