Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarusian Wikipedias


 * 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 delete. WP:V is not negotiable. Every article must have reliable sources, and nobody here has produced any. Sandstein 13:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian Wikipedias

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has no third-party sources. Without third party sources, it's unverifiable. It contains no claim to notability under the relevant standard. Much of the content is arguably unencyclopedic minutiae. Being a wikipedia does not except it from our normal policies and guidelines. deranged bulbasaur 11:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This search turns up messages to mailing lists, results from wikipedia itself, and a couple blog posts, but nothing promising. deranged bulbasaur  12:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; not particularly badly-formed as an article, but still can't pass WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and (especially) WP:ASR. Heather 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Random nomination of one of a set of articles. It is highly likely that there are independent sources in Belarusian (which aren't going to show up by searching google using the Latin alphabet). RegRCN 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WAX. Mass nomination of these articles failed in the past with posters saying that the articles are substantially different and should be nominated separately, so what other recourse is there? If you were to peruse my contribution history, you'd find that I've nominated two others like this, so it's not as though I'm picking on one in particular. If there are sources, let them be produced. We can't keep based on the vague promise that there may be sources that none of us can read. Other language sources are perfectly acceptable if they exist, but we can't expect editors to take them into account unless they are enumerated. If that were the case, all Afd activity would be effectively paralyzed because no prospective nominator can search for sources in all languages. deranged bulbasaur  20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ASR and WP:RS. This is basically nothing more than the internal history of the Belarussian Wikipedia. I fail to see how this is notable. Resolute 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Every Wikipedia deserves an article in every other one.--Bedivere 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, how else will anyone understand why there are two Belarusian Wikipedias if not for this article? - MTC 15:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedias are no inherently notable, therefore sources must be provided to show how they are notable. Failure here means there is no notability. Nuttah68 11:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom not notable.Harlowraman 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.