Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolof Wikipedia

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolof Wikipedia

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

Not notable, the only "reliable" source may not have mentioned this edition at all The ChampionMan 1234 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 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]

- We actually have a precedent to redirect non-notable versions to List of Wikipedias - these follow WP:GNG as much as anything else. ansh666 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasonable doubt that it is mentioned in the source (Google Books says that there's a mention), but trim out some unsourced info, which I'll do if it's kept. ansh666 04:56, 26 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.