Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhili language

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 00:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bhili language
From Pages needing translation into English: In an Arabic script. I don't know what language. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:13, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Arabic, and looks utterly irrelevant - discusses the practice of celebrating the Prophet's birthday. Seems like a cut-and-paste copyvio - it starts in mid-sentence - but I can't find a source. - Mustafaa 11:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume Mustafaa knows whereof he speaks. It seems easier to handle this here than as an (uncertain) copyvio. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete English articles need to be in... uh... English! --Fuzzball! (talk) 03:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it would have had 10 more days on Pages needing translation into English before being eligible for deletion on that basis.
 * Ah, my ignorance - sorry. Rewritten page definitely looks worthy of a keep now. --Fuzzball! (talk) 06:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since there really is a language called Bhili, I've removed the Arabic text and replaced it with what information I could find about the Bhili language. Unfortunately, it wasn't much, but at least the article is now in English and is about the same topic as its title. I vote to keep the rewritten article in the hopes that someone who knows more about Indo-Aryan languages than I do will expand my one-sentence substub. --Angr/(comhrá) 05:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten article. I'd say speedy keep if we can, original reason for nomination has been addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite. Mgm|(talk) 08:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep rewrite. Good work Angr. Dsmdgold 13:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep looks good now.Gorrister 17:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep good rewrite. Nomination withdrawn, as far as I can see. - Mustafaa 19:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep! Honestly, people dump on tribal languages enough as it is! QuartierLatin1968 02:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I wasn't "dumping" on a tribal language: we were submitted a dubious piece of text about the Prophet's birthday in an Arabic script. That is what I nominated for VfD. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were. QuartierLatin1968 13:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Original reason for VfD submission has been addressed and mootified. I'll see what I can do about fleshing the article out a bit.  Tomer TALK  22:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

SINCE there is unanimous consensus to keep the article, and since the vote's required one-week period is now expired, would someone please do the honors and cache this discussion? I'm headed to remove the VfD tag on the article itself... Tomer TALK 10:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it's only been up on VfD for two days. It was at Pages needing translation into English before that. --Angr/comhrá 11:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm You're correct.  My bad.  Should I put the flag back?  Tomer TALK  14:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess. I don't think it's likely the page will be deleted, but we should do things by the book. --Angr/comhrá 15:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There should be a better way to handle situations like this, where clearly bad articles are made into completely different good articles. The Arabic gibberish was an obvious candidate for deletion; the language article is an obvious keep (if someone were to nominate it for vfd now, they would be denounced for making a bad faith nom, and it would likely be speedy kept). In a case like this, 'by the book' sounds like red tape, given that a stranger to this site visiting the article for the first time will see the vfd banner, and may be confused about the legitimacy of the information there. -- 8^D gab 15:17, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)


 * I agree. Consequently, I made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/April 2005 Part Two, q.v.  Tomer TALK  21:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.