Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic groups in Rwanda

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. Deletion is not an isse here. I'll add some tags to the article. Tone 17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in Rwanda

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

Contested prod. This is an essay, possibly a term paper, and not an encyclopedia article. Fails wikipedia policy on original research andy (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss - the topic seems relevant but this is an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Especially, the introduction needs to be completely removed. McMarcoP (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an essay, but essays can be cleaned up, and this would be a valuable article if it was. It doesn't seem like original research to me, but I could be convinced otherwise. Like McMarcoP says, the introduction is far too OR and essay-ish, but the rest of the article seems good to me. If kept, it should be renamed, probably to Ethnic groups of Rwanda. Recury (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recury, clear and good point. Needs heavy rewriting and some good sourcing though McMarcoP (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be well sourced — it simply needs to be reworked, wikified and cleaned up. Billbowery (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep topic is highly notable in light of the ethnic warfare there, and this is a reasonable topic for a break-out; clean-up. JJL (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; needs to be completely edited, but doesn't need to be at AfD since it is a decent topic with good sources. Awickert (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content is sourced properly, and meets notability guidelines. Netalarmtalk 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informative and needed, but slap a couple of wiki tags on it for the reworking that's needed. Rafablu88 02:08, 17 August 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.