Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abdorito/Silas Niyibizi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abdorito/Silas Niyibizi[edit]

Stale draft not in English. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good reason to delete. Have you tried translating it? It looks like a possibly notable person, and we have no article on her. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is English Wikipedia... and we don't permit non-English pages here. It appears to be in French, fill your boots if you understand French and are up for providing an accurate translation. Just remember to avoid copyvio and find some sources. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule requiring English in userspace. Indeed, one of the biggest tasks remaining for the project is the translation of pages from one language Wikipedia to another. This will involve lots of translations in userspace.

Google translate seems to do an adequate job. Google searching pieces brings up no online hits. It has sources. It is unlikely to be a copyright violation. There is no valid reason for deletion of this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to translate and move to mainspace within a reasonable time, cause if so I'll withdraw to give you time. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not accept the challenge to do anything with a time limit. Alteratnively, I argue "reasonable" = unlimited.

The subject appears to be a Rwandan University Professor, with reasonable assertions of notability, both per WP:PROF and by association with the Rwandan war/genocide. Beyond the biography, the subject wrote materials worth consideration for material for other articles. http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers14-07/23269.pdf for example.

Wikipedia continues to suffer from heavy systematic bias. Every american sportsperson is considered notable, but academic topics in Africa are neglected. Seeking to apply time limits to userspace material for pages on African subject is to perpetuate the systematic bias. There is also no good reason to do it. This recently deceased person deserves an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American so I have no such bias. So no plan to turn it into an article. Someone else should discover the stale draft and do it. Gotcha. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia suffers the systematic bias. Not you. Also, I disagree that the word "stale" applies. This is an historic (deceased) individual. The material recorded in the draft is not going off, not becoming outdated in any way. It is no more stale than old articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is WP:STALE, but you choose to say otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the idea is that someone else with the motivation and expertise will find it and pick it up. !Voting Keep isn't a commitment to do that yourself, it's just saying the option should be left open. Someone else finding it and picking it up will be facilitated by adding the draft to a maintenance category (e.g. the proposed Category:Stale drafts with high potential), and will be very much precluded by deletion. A2soup (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, a stale draft not in English is a good reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Draft hasn't been edited since March 2014. If SmokeyJoe and any other editor wants it userified to look into translating it, that's fine but after a certain point, we know definitely that the draft in this state isn't going to be a part of this project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated it with google translate. It is French and fully coherent. It is sourced. There is a clear case made for notability. The person is deceased and few of the facts are subject to change. There is nothing "stale" about the content. The mass deletion of draft pages was intended to remove the massive preponderance of worthless cruft, which is certainly not this. The draft requires the attention of a caring editor with an interest in the subject, and until then it is fine to leave it in the author's userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it usable in its current state? Would it require a total rewrite? Else, I'd say offer to adopt it and post it at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and see if someone else will adopt it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The google auto translation is fine and usable. It is not so much a rewrite needed (google translate is becoming quite good at writing passable English), as written it might even pass AfD, but I would recommend just another source or two, and something to build connection with at least one other article. It being an old Rwandan topic, finding sources is not trivial, but worth doing to counteract Wikipedia's systematic bias for the north America and Europe. Not all old things should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.