Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,388,333 edits
Line 12: Line 12:
==Africa==
==Africa==
<!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muluku}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fatah_Ahamada}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fatah_Ahamada}}

Revision as of 15:14, 2 October 2022

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Africa. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Africa|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Africa. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Africa

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 merge to Makua people#Religion. Star Mississippi 14:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muluku

Muluku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been flagged as a potential hoax. Not only has the article been an unsourced WP:PERMASTUB since its creation in May 2004, but a search for "Muluku Mozambique" or "Muluku god" or anything come to that mostly returns results that can be traced back to the article itself. There is apparently an OUP book that mentions Muluku, but I’m unable to access it and therefore cannot be sure of its veracity.

This might have been a partial name-change of Nana Buluku. Furthermore, the traditional Makua religion does not have a god of creation per se. The article has not been edited that much since its creation, which is always a red flag, and the writing is some of the worst I’ve ever seen for any Wikipedia article. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I poked around Google Books and managed to track down plenty of snippets and previews that back up the story. Here's a few:

  • Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual, published 2016[1]
  • A Visual Guide to Evolution and Genetics, published 2018[2]
  • African Mythology, A to Z[3]
  • This one is the real kicker as it was published in 1979, so no chance of a Wikipedia hoax corrupting it. Mythologies of the World: A Concise Encyclopedia[4]

I think there are enough sources to make an article viable, although it being all but abandoned for 18 years might make finding editors dicey. Maybe the wikiprojects for Mozambique, mythology, or religion would be interested. Blue Edits (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was wrong! To me, this case is reminiscent of Ruda Real: a likely real entity got corrupted into a fictitious story on Wikipedia.
The 1979 book is an excellent find! Even so, I’m not sure this is notable enough. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Merge? They all have their advocates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 16 October 2022 (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.
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. There is clear consensus that the content as it exists has problems with original research, and is not suitable as it stands. There are also reasonable concerns being raised that the topic isn't treated as a coherent whole by reliable sources, and as such isn't suitable for a standalone article at all; however, this issue was not discussed in detail. I have no objections to providing a draftspace copy, but only in the understanding that it will not be moved to mainspace by the main author. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violent Extremism in West Africa in the 21st Century

This article reads like an opinion piece in article space. It has twice been moved from article space to draft space, by User:Praxidicae and User:Bonadea. Both times the author has moved the article back to article space without attempting to discuss with the reviewers. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page (which was the draft talk page when the article was a draft). Maybe the author has a non-neutral point of view, since the topic is one in which a non-neutral point of view is at least as likely as a COI. The article consists in large part of excerpts from main articles, and that content will not be lost by deletion. Other than that, the introductory paragraphs are opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
@Robert McClenon Hello. I'm curious if your perspective of the article "reading like an opinion piece" is one you get directly from reading the article, or if it's entirely anchored by the comments the reviewers left.
The article has undergone substantial modifications since each comment- after each comment it was modified to address the concerns of the reviewer. I doubt you'd be of the same perspective if you were reading the article unbiased by reviews of earlier versions.
The reviewers left messages on my Talk page - I replied to these messages explaining my perspective. I also left a message on User:Bonadea's Talk page, with no response.
Admittedly I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and this is my first article from scratch - I've made edits on a number of existing pages, but this is my first time trying to get a piece from scratch into the main article space. Maybe I should also have been posting messages on the article's Talk page - that seems like something important. I'm curious however why the reviewers didn't voice their concerns on the Talk page though - they're obviously more experienced than I am with Wikipedia, so I imagine if they knew article Talk page discussions were important they would initiate them.
About the Actual idea behind the article: Violent Extremism in West Africa is one coherent problem. The fundamental motivation for starting this article in the first place, is to emphasise that the instances of terrorism in the region are simply symptoms of one overall issue. Your observation that the piece contains excerpts from other articles is accurate. However these other articles treat the instances of terrorism as being separate and possibly independent. This is false and misleading, and could possibly stymy attempts to understand the issue at its source.
This VICE News article provides a very insightful analysis of extremism in West Africa as one coherent problem - not as scattered instances of unrelated terrorism. This specific insight is what I find missing from all existing Wikipedia articles on the general topic, and that was my motivation for writing this piece.
Yes I moved the piece back to article space - Usually this was after multiple messages to the reviewer - on my Talk page, on theirs, with no response. In my experience, moving a piece back into article space (after modifying it based on the reviewer's comments) is the most effective way to get perspective on it. Wikipedia reviewers are evidently more motivated to screen new pieces in the article space, than they are to give perspective on drafts. It's frustrating to think a draft has to wait 4+ months in the AfC space after each resubmission. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Violent extremism. No other part of the world has such detailed treatment on the subject. The main article should be expanded first, before developing a sub-article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:Tamedu quaternion - First, to answer your question about whether I stated that the article read like an opinion piece based on reading the article or on reading the reviewers' comments, I read the article and was commenting on the article, and concurred with the comments of the other reviewers. Your question is insulting, but I have answered it as if it were a reasonable question. I read all three versions of the article, and it was my opinion that the changes that you made did not materially address the comments of the reviewers. You were evidently trying to guess what the reviewers meant, and were trying to make an optimistic guess; sometimes that isn't the best approach. Second, it is true that articles are reviewed more quickly in article space than in draft space. The actual average review time is much less than 3 or 4 months. There is a difference between the mean or mode of a distribution and the maximum of a distribution. One difference between review of an article that is moved into article space and a draft is that review of an article that was previously draftified is likely to result in its deletion. You were move warring. At this point, I don't plan to comment on the content of the article, since you have insulted the reviewers and the review process. This is not a good way to start as a Wikipedia editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon I'm sorry if you found some of my comments offensive. That was not my intention- I have absolutely nothing to gain from insulting anyone on here - so far I've just been giving my perspective and detailing my experience here editing Wikipedia.
    So far I've found Wikipedia reviewers more eager to shut down ideas without regard for my feelings, than to offer constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. There also tends to be the tendency for groupthink, where reviewers agree with earlier reviewers/admins without trying to really see things for themselves and get their own opinion on a piece. I've experienced that in waaay more intensity on German Wikipedia, but I feel like it might also exist here to some extent.
    All of that definitely influences the tone of voice I use here - If you find it somewhat abrasive, then I'm sorry about that. It's not my intention, I'm just responding to the environment.
    --
    About the reviewers' comments, something that repeatedly comes up involves how "encyclopaedic" the piece is (or rather is not). Someone in the help channel suggested that I restrict the scope of the article to the 21st century, and I modified the article title accordingly. It made a lot of sense, and that way the piece wasn't claiming to give a comprehensive historical discourse on the topic.
    You mention that I seem to have been guessing what the reviewers meant in their comments. I'm curious what you mean by this, and I'm very open to have you further break down the parts of their feedback I don't seem to be sensitised to. Some concerns I feel I have addressed- like a relative lack of citations, and recentism. More Wikipedia-specific attributes like "being encyclopaedic" are notions I'm completely open to learning about and obtaining feedback on.
    --
    About review times, the article had spent about three months as a draft before I made the first page move into article space. When it was reverted to a draft, it spent close to a month there. I didn't see any obvious signs that it would be reviewed any more quickly than the first time.
    In both instances I got a reviewer to provide perspective on the article within hours of moving it into article space. In one case I got feedback in fifteen minutes. Moving the article just seemed like a much more effective way to get perspective on it.
    --
    Again I'm sorry if you found some of my words offensive - that is in no way my intention. I am very open to learning and receiving helpful feedback, and I do hope we can have a productive and enlightening discussion, thanks. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion in case other editors think there is content that should be Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (weak) Merge to Violent extremism to be the most appropriate solution. There are sources which indicate the notability of the phenomenon specifically in West Africa, but a brief section in the main article will probably suffice. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article conflates violent extremism with counter-terrorism policy and conflates geographic regions. The article mixes sources which speak of the Sahel (some of which is in West Africa and some not), Coastal West Africa (so a part of West Africa, but not West Africa) and West Africa. Also note the use of sources considered unreliable. I do not see what is salvageable here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, a list could be added to the main article with entries of movements described as "violent extremism" by reliable sources. Beyond that, I would have to take a closer look. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goldsztajn Hello- I feel there are issues with your understanding of West African geography which mislead your inferences. You think of these geographical regions (Sahel, Coastal West Africa, West Africa) as being way more distinct and way less inter-related/synonymous than they really are.
    The article talks about how extremist groups from the Sahel are pervading countries in West Africa. It's one problem - it's one fundamental brand of extremism - there's no way to discuss extremism in West Africa without talking about the Sahel. That's like talking about eg Turkish migration into Western Europe without discussing Turkey itself, or countries in between.
    Your perspective that "Coastal West Africa is a part of West Africa, but not West Africa" is just wrong. About eighty to ninety percent of countries in "Coastal West Africa" also extend upwards into more central West Africa. You could take a look at Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Ghana, etc.
    A country like Mali also happens to be about equally spread out between the Sahel and more central West Africa. You cannot speak of these regions as being so distinct when a lot of countries overlap across them.
    And then do you mind shedding some light on what cited sources are "considered unreliable"? I'm curious what sources you're referring to. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Youtube is self published, there is no consensus on the reliability of Vice News. The article mixes sources that cover different regions/subregions. There's plenty of sources on counter-terrorism in ECOWAS; that would be a far more appropriate subject for an article, that could be reliably sourced. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and strongly oppose merge per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. The article is full of original synthesis, original research, and is supported by self published materials like youtube. Given the inherent problems in the article, there is nothing of value to preserve and merge. Merging would only negatively impact the article on violent extremism by introducing non-verifiable content.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is mostly about disparate events in different countries in West Africa. The sources that link it all together as one idea are either a) sources that probably don't meet WP:V (like the YouTube links) or b) sources about ECOWAS's counter-terrorism strategy. This isn't enough to justify a separate article. There might be an argument for having an article about ECOWAS's counter-terrorism strategy but that content would probably be better suited for the actual ECOWAS article, which currently has no information on this. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2022 (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.
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. The "delete" side argues persuasively that the sources presented are insufficient; the "keep" side for the most part does not engage with their arguments. Sandstein 06:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatah Ahamada

Fatah Ahamada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found beyond routine database listings. Rusalkii (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a primary match report. It's a secondary in-depth extensive article about a match, which has numerous mentions of Ahamada. WP:ROUTINE talks of sports scores being routine - not in-depth articles. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you think that article was written with the tenses it uses without being primary? And anyway it is extensive only in that it offers a play-by-play of specific match details from the perspective of one spectator, with nothing encyclopedic or DUE from the handful of sentences describing Ahamada's involvement. ROUTINE is not limited to simple box scores, the guideline explicitly says Planned coverage of scheduled events and sports matches are routine so that makes two places where this type of coverage is excluded. JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to be past-tense to me other than the odd metaphor. Before I pull out my Bescherelle, can you point to the conjugation that concerns you? When ROUTINE discusses sports matches, it's telling us that we shouldn't be writing articles about an individual sports match. WP:ROUTINE contains examples about what shouldn't have articles. It's not a discussion of whether the source can or can't be used as a GNG source for another subject - such as a player, or an incident during a match (say for example a fire when much of the stadium burns down). Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
jfc... ROUTINE is mostly concerned with whether an event merits an article, but it also literally defines sports matches (and their coverage) as routine, and that designation is used by NSPORT in its descriptions of what type of coverage is considered insufficient for GNG. This is not difficult to understand! JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm, User:JoelleJay if jfc is an abbreviation for Jesus Fucking Christ - and if so, how that is not a bannable offence? If it's a euphemism how is that not a violation of WP:CIVIL? Even an interjection seems unnecessary. Also you are dodging the question; what was the verb tense that gave you concern? Nfitz (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and take me to ANI if you think that's a bannable offense.
The match report features multiple instances of present tense commentary, as you know, that is strongly suggestive of first-person primary reporting. L’ailier comorien a-t-il fait faute ou non sur Rafael Fiorèse dans sa course au départ de l’action? Lui assure que non, le Champagnou estime que oui, et M. Criblet a pris sa décision: jouez! But even if it's secondary, it is still routine coverage as defined by ROUTINE and as explicitly rejected by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And even if such a source was accepted, it still doesn't offer SIGCOV, especially not of anything encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to ascertain what the meaning was other than Jesus Fucking Christ; I'd hoped you'd have told me that it was some kind of reference to something like Juventus F.C.; I have no intention of taking a single personal attack to ANI - but I'm concerned that your reaction to be caught violating one of the pillars is not to simply apologize, but to challenge me to report you. Also I don't see how that sentence, indicates that the source is primary; also, that's not present tense, that's the subjunctive tense for assurer and estimer. I wouldn't translate anything to "as you know" anywhere in that sentence. I think by ROUTINE and NSPORT you are referring in particular to WP:SPORTBASIC - which nonetheless is met with the other reference, as SPORTBASIC notes Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the pillars forbid swearing, much less common expressions of exasperation.
  • "Subjunctive" isn't a tense; "Lui assure que non" is in présent tense with subjonctif mood; if it was passé it would be "ait (or a) assuré".
  • SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source, but as explicitly said in the very next sentence that you omitted, that is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. This has been explained to you many, many times, including by admins, e.g. here editors are encouraged not to refer to the final point of WP:SPORTCRIT, which is clearly not trying to say a single source is sufficient for notability for a sports person, when the first sentence aligns exactly with GNG in the requirement of multiple significant independent sources as all articles require. and here A single source is enough to prevent a PROD, but not enough to keep an article at WP:AFD if no additional sources can be found. and here Read the very next line. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG." I.e, it still needs to meet the GNG. and by me recently here. You've also been informed of the relationship between NSPORT and ROUTINE multiple times, like here with WP:ROUTINE is called out as a criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC, which applies here. ... WP:SPORTCRIT specifically calls out WP:ROUTINE in the third bullet.
Your continued disruption at AfDs, wasting everyone's time with the same repeatedly rejected arguments, is far more deserving of a ban than any "swearing", and I would ask @Liz or whoever closes this to please take this into consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing at another user, simply because they think you are wrong, is most certainly a much worse offence than pointing out the fallacies in your argument - fallacies that I've pointed out in the past multiple times, and you still argue otherwise. I think we are done here, unless you want to WP:BLUDGEON further. How you actually think it's okay to further WP:BIAS by going this far for a player that clearly has one GNG source, and has other borderline sources - I still don't see how the use of the subjunctive makes this a primary source, whether it be tense, tone, or mood. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion is still occurring right now. It's hard to close a discussion when participants have different understandings of what a valid source establishing notability is. Sources are presented and then are accepted by some editors as establishing GNG while they are rejected by others as not. Can we come to some agreement about definitions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Delete based on current sourcing. I'm really on the fence. [8] is by far the best current source, and clearly passes the WP:100WORDS essay, but half of it is quotes from the subject. With the additonal commentary, I'd still say it's a GNG source, maybe 4/5 of one. [9] is an interview with zero independent commentary—not enough to count toward GNG. [10] is okay, clearly independent, although rather routine likely unreliable. What brings me to delete is that this player hasn't played a game at the national level since 2018. If he plays some more games at the national level and receives additional coverage, that should be enough for recreation. Ovinus (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Ovinus, just a note that I'm pretty sure comorosfootball.com is a group blog focused on hyping Comorian football, rather than professional journalism, per their "about" section: "We are young people who have given themselves the courage and love to serve our nation and support our football institutions by informing while promoting Comorian football locally and internationally. Our actions gained momentum in 2014 with our social media presence first on Facebook and then on Twitter before starting to write our first blog posts a year later." JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I guess I was too trusting, thanks. Adjusted accordingly. Ovinus (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Only one significant source has been identified and GNG requires multiple. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found three good sources among many many other French sources, also article has been vastly expanded by Robby.is.on and I, which took some time. To the closer, keep in mind the nominator (Rusalkii) themselves has essentially rescinded their nomination and expressed the desire to keep the article, as well as the fact that there are 2+ more keep votes than delete (3+ if you count the nominators statement expressing their desire to keep the article, which leaves 8 keep votes and 5 delete at the time of writing). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely did not find "three good sources". This is pure Q&A interview, which you know is unacceptable, and this has three scattered sentences on him in a group blog post: obviously not SIGCOV in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz Note that consensus in AfD is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes. The closing admin should also note that @JoelleJay assesment on the sources is spot on.
  • This Q&A interview includes no independent commentary and thus is a primary source as the information in it about the subject comes from the subject himself.
  • This Comorosfootball source, which according to their own site is a blog, only states that he scored a goal for a new club and thus is not a significant source.
  • The laregion.ch source is a routine match report that does not count towards GNG per WP:NSPORTS.
  • The 24heures.ch source is the only WP:SIGCOV that has been presented and for the subject to pass WP:GNG, he needs to have multiple significant sources.
These assesments have not been refuted by the Keep !voters. Alvaldi (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2022 (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.

Categories

Africa Proposed deletions

Algeria

<--

Algeria Proposed deletions

Please hide entire section when there are no articles nominated for WP:PROD -->


Angola


Cameroon


Democratic Republic of the Congo


Egypt

Seneb-Neb-Af

Seneb-Neb-Af (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can only find sources and content unduly taking about mastaba. If there should be ATD, then redirect. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Proposed deletions


Ethiopia

Ethiopia Proposed deletions


Ghana

Togbe Abutia Kodzo Gidi V

Togbe Abutia Kodzo Gidi V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once at most. toweli (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godenu

Godenu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Some of the sources linked in the article (like the first and third) don't even mention "Godenu". The fourth source mentions Godenu only once, as the "Gbi-Godenu Volta Region IFAD/SCIMP Project", seemingly a different thing. The second source does mention Godenu, but it's pretty brief. Other sources linked aren't reliable or aren't independent. I can find mentions of Godenu, like in this article, but that's it. toweli (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Park (Sunyani, Ghana)

Coronation Park (Sunyani, Ghana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, no inline refs or citations, but contains content that can be mergeable into another article. Intrisit (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is mergable, then the content should be merged into the other article and then redirected to the merged article. ~ GB fan 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a Merge is suggested but no Merge target article identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu

Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. The references presently being used don't establish notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Order of the Elephant of Godenu (now deleted) for a related nomination. toweli (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Céphas Bansah

Céphas Bansah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability, reliable sources. Page was probably created in relation to Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe which was deleted in this Afd. Seems to be another one of those fake titles selling businesses.

Account that started the page was blocked for being a promotion only account and other CoI editors are in the edit history. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-StellarHalo (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StellarHalo Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Kenya

Gazetted officer (Kenya)

Gazetted officer (Kenya) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A gazetted officer simply means a government employee whose appointment gets notified in the Gazette. I don't think it warrants a standalone article, WP:PAGEDECIDE. Article is also uncited and not received WP:SIGCOV with only single reference, which is barely reliable (fails WP:RS). Hence, looks like article is made out of original research. TheProEditor11 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mbugua

Martha Mbugua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer, please read what Wikipedia means by notable. 2 and 6 do not mention her. 3 and 7 (which are the same source) has a potted biography, but is mostly quoting her. 5 gives me a 404, but judging by its title, I would be amazed if it had significant coverage of her. 8 and 9 give potted biographies, but are almost certainly not independent.
Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Libya

Mauritius


Morocco


Nigeria

Pre-modern forest conservation practices in Southern Nigeria

Pre-modern forest conservation practices in Southern Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTESSAY. Reads a lot like an essay, and doesn't fit the tone on Wikipedia. Attempting to rewrite this article would be more trouble than it's worth. While relatively well sourced, I'm not sure how such a narrow topic can pass GNG. OzzyOlly (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obafela Bank-Olemoh

Obafela Bank-Olemoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent, significant, reliable source about this person even after google searching. Gabriel (……?) 23:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Basketball

Educational Basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification, whcih leaves AfD as the route for articles with insufficient referencing and failing WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Concept

Duke Concept (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing relies entirely on interviews with people connected with the company, announcements, or mentions in passing due to their involvement in organising events, those sources do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing++ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- just wanted to contribute as the writer of the article. I wrote it after reading about the company's focus on work in the black diaspora, which aligned with a wiki project I've been involved with on and off. I did look closely at the sources for this article, because I know the ones I was using to establish notability (references 1-3) have interview content within them, but in looking at each article overall it seemed that there was significant content outside of the interview quotations, and that that content contained independent analysis- including looking at the wider industry context they are operating in, with statistics etc included in that. I also looked at the publications and writers to make sure they were both independent from the subject and engage in fact checking as part of their editorial process. I know 100% interview content does not establish notability, but I feel it is fairly uncommon for independent articles on companies or the people behind them not to structure their articles around a fair amount of interview content. The fact the company were also included in a way that was more than a passing mention in other major stories on Afrobeats, like the Rolling Stone one, suggested to me notability within the Afrobeats industry. Anyway, I just wanted to engage and outline why I used the sources I did. Thanks Thebookstamper (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to specific paragraphs in the sources that contain in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company* that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing++ 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if this is a bit messy, I'm doing it on the fly, so haven't gone through all the sources. Appreciate it might not be the most forensic exercise because of that... Thanks for your time.
    In the Pulse article:
    (Citing these as examples of content about the company, not directly generated by something the company has said, or paraphrasing. They may reference something said by the company, but as I see it are writing their own analysis around that. Or the company is then responding to a point made by the publication.)
    Section: ‘The show which became a lesson’
    Coupled with the rise of social media, that show contributes to how Ugeh now perceives social media as a marketing tool. These days, his team studies social media based on demographics. Some artists are stronger on Facebook than Twitter or TikTok while others are bigger on Instagram. Some artists are also big on the four. An artist’s audience determines social media marketing and engagement is a key metric for measurement. While Ugeh admits that social media has aided event companies, he admits that social media phenomena should be taken with a pinch of salt.
    Section: ‘What’s the process of organising a show at Duke Concept’
    Sometimes, unplanned artists also approach the team through their booking agents The team then uses a data-driven approach to see where the artists can sell and whether Duke Concept would be willing to tour those places. These days, the events happen in mid-range markets to big markets. It’s unlikely that Duke Concept would take an Afrobeat artist to a small and predominantly white market like Milwaukee, Wisconsin at this time [...]
    It makes sense. The attitude of a city like Boston to touring and nightlife would be much different to that of smaller markets. The pulse of young attendees also matters as much as their priorities. It's more likely that a 21-year-old, who was bred in New York would be willing to spend $200 on a ticket than his equivalent in a smaller market. Ugeh offers it from a perspective of comparative analysis, not with factual totality. As much as urban culture influences pop culture, the rising state of Afrobeats suggests that the racial spread of America must be taken into consideration while planning an event for an Afrobeats artist.
    Section: 'Pricing'
    (In response to Ugeh referencing fair pricing set by Duke Concept):
    But pricing also depends on the format of the venue. As much as Duke Concept might charge $250 for front row seats in a seated theatre, the people at the back might pay as low as $30. While ticketing is already booming, secondary ticketing has grown a life of its own. Market Watch reports that, “The global Secondary Tickets market size is projected to reach USD 2755.5 million by 2027, from USD 1502 million in 2020, at a CAGR of 9.1% between 2021-2027.” Ugeh believes that there is nothing anybody can do about it. He believes that the best way to fight it is to encourage people to purchase their tickets early enough, discourage hoarding of tickets and to always make tickets available at the venue.
    WMV article:
    (Including this para as an example of referencing another source- an interview given to a different publication, not their own):
    The Nigerian moved to New York City with his family a decade ago and shortly after; launched the company. In the early days tried to do an Afro-Caribbean showcase with headliners Timaya and Mavado in 2014, he told Pulse it was a “flop”. He references that show as growing pains but one lesson he learned was that; Caribbean events are marketed differently from African events- mainly Afro-music require digital promotions while at the time reggae- dancehall events required linear advertising, along with street “posters”and guerrilla marketing.
    Rolling Stone:
    Now, there’s plenty more evidence that Afrobeats is connecting in the U.S. Last October, Burna Boy became the first African solo artist to headline the Hollywood Bowl; this year, he’s slated to play Madison Square Garden, the first headlining performance for a Nigerian musician at the storied New York venue. Duke Concept, the production company behind the shows, was founded by Osita Ugeh in 2013, two years after he moved to the United States from Nigeria. The business initially had to be scrappy, producing concerts at small nightclubs and DIY warehouses — some of the only venues available to Afropop artists at the time.
    Today, things look much different. In 2018, Duke Concept secured a partnership with Live Nation, and last year spearheaded the U.S. tours of African acts such as Wizkid, Omah Lay, Olamide, Adekunle Gold, and Diamond Platnumz.
    Billboard:
    Osita “Duke” Ugeh, who, as CEO of promoter Duke Concept, has been booking U.S. tours for African acts like Burna for the last decade. (He secured Burna’s first sold-out U.S. show in April 2019 at Harlem’s Apollo Theater — where he again made history as the first Afrobeats artist to sell out the venue.) But as Ugeh knows well, Burna’s arrival at the Garden was far from preordained. Since founding Duke Concept in 2013, he has struggled to get artists like him into big rooms. Now, as Afrobeats continues to expand its reach, Ugeh says he and his 15-person team are starting to see that reflected in the kind of venues the genre’s artists can play: He has gone from booking two to three U.S. tours for Afrobeats artists a year to booking two to three a month, with Davido, Tiwa Savage, Rema and more scheduled for later this year.
    When his “One Night in Space” show at the Garden was announced in December, Duke Concept launched a joint venture with Live Nation, expanding upon a relationship that began in 2018, when Burna himself approached the company about a tour deal. He insisted on bringing Ugeh along; subsequently, UTA’s Christian Bernhardt, Burna’s touring agent, introduced Ugeh to Live Nation’s director of touring, Andy Messersmith. Thebookstamper (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and edit. Thanks to Thebookstamper for the comprehensive response but I don't agree that the extracted paragraphs provide sufficient in-depth information about the company. The Pulse article extracts are either commenting on or repeating comments made by the company or providing stats about the secondary ticketing market. The WMV article talks about the founder (not the company) and does not have any in-depth information about the company. The Rolling Stone article has a (generic) sentence describing the company and also repeats an announcement about securing a partnership - neither sufficiently detailed. The Billboard article is again about the founder or the partnership, not the company and does not provide any "Independent Content" by way of analysis/commentary/etc, just repeats information already provided by the company. HighKing++ 09:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighKing, please change this !vote into a comment, it is double dipping with your nome statement. Mach61 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! HighKing++ 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have to agree with the nom that none of the sources that cover this subject in detail are sufficiently independent; w/r/t Thebookstamper’s argument that the articles which have interview content have non-interview content as well, I would note that just because a statement isn't in quotation marks doesn't mean it was a journalist's own independent writing; it may be a paraphrase of what the subject said during the interview, or information provided by the subject in a press kit or such. Mach61 09:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passed the guideline WP:GNG very clearly, as i have understood it. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sanzeb, I've already looked (and commented) on the Rolling Stone article and it makes exactly two mentions of the company, and nothing that you would call in-depth about the company and also relies entirely on information provided by Ugeh and the company, so not "Independent Content" either. Can you explain the content in that article you say passes WP:NCORP? Also, to pass NCORP, multiple sources are required. HighKing++ 10:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you also comment on how you popped up after over 2 years of not editing here (and before that, hardly any editing at all), just to !vote at this AfD? Not exactly an area for inexperienced editors to participate in. HighKing++ 10:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing84 it isn't just "interviews", we need in-depth "Independent Content" which isn't simply regurgitating company/exec provided info. Nothing in Pulse and WMV that isn't repeating company info that I can see - what bits are you referring to? I've no objections to Draftify either. HighKing++ 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Base One (rapper)

Base One (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. The only three references in the article are interviews, with two of them being on unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road 2 Soulwave

Road 2 Soulwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, nothing much to add. Apart from the several unreferenced sections, this article makes no credible claim of importance or significance for the song. The musician himself is non-notable too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasën Blu

Jasën Blu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in this article makes the subject inherently notable, literally. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. The sources are run of the mill coverages and PRs for singles and so on. The few others that aren't PRs are promotional puff pieces. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While @Vanderwaalforces is correct about the status of this article's subject specifically regarding WP:NMUSICIAN, it does seem to fair slightly better by WP:GNG given a number of the citations point back to reliable sources such as major publications. Also, the subject appears to be an up and coming musical act with not very much but nonetheless, a number of verifiable articles citing solo works and in a few more cases, co-citations with notable subjects via creative associations. On a recent edit to this article, I noticed a few bigger publications confirmed hitherto unverified sections, and replaced the citations on the affected section. If the subject is essentially an upcoming musical act gaining decent coverage for its works, a better alternative might be to watch article for a while for any improvement on its adherence to WP:NMUSICIAN, before an outright deletion. Kevtutado (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoldMyne TV

GoldMyne TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable online TV that received only passing mentions in all sources referenced. The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. Other available sources not cited in the article only give passing mentions in reference to interviews conducted by the subject. But those do not count for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another of my favorite constant topics which come up here often; Yet Another Non-Notable Nigerian YouTube Music Show®️. Nate • (chatter) 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Tv has been awarded 3 times by a notable award ceremony Legendarycharles (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not understand what the nominated meant by The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. because winning awards for three years is an evidence of notability. Best, Reading Beans 09:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We may be nearing a consensus that these awards establish notability, but it would be useful if a few more voices could weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria proposed deletions

Nigeria miscellany for deletion


Rwanda

Confy

Confy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject does not show up in any online searches except for YouTube, social media, and one website newtimes.co.rw. My previous edit was to remove almost all of the article sources (almost all pointing to New Times articles), which were simply puff pieces and did not factually support anything in the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda proposed deletions


Senegal


Somalia

Daaru Salaam University

Daaru Salaam University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. All sources from it's own website. Cabrils (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we see more participation in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions


South Africa

Henry Long (speedway rider)

Henry Long (speedway rider) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only primary sources provided. Nothing found when searching ["Henry Long " speedway] LibStar (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family Constellations

Family Constellations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It has been some time since I have seen an article so thin as this. An amalgamation of a lot of ideas of Bert Hellinger who may be notable in his own right (edit: I decided that he is not notable either: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger) but this idea of his seems to have generated very little interest and notice beyond the typical "don't fall for scams" notes and some poorly-considered publications with basically no citations. If we were to remove all the WP:CRUFT, we would be left with a simple statement that "Family Constellations is Bert Hellinger's attempt to do therapy." That's all that I can see sourced properly. Not suitable for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I didn't have enough time to spend with this to actually cast a vote, but I'm a bit skeptical that deletion would be the best outcome here. This seems to have generated a great deal of attention over the years, particularly in German. I found hundreds of passing mentions in a quick search (including in e.g. the NYT and the New Yorker), which to me suggests that sourcing likely exists to support a stub. Suriname0 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to the "great deal of attention in German"? I checked through the NYT and New Yorker sources and was not particularly impressed with them as a means to argue for an entire article to be written.
    What I am failing to find are sources which deal with the subject independent of boosterism. jps (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:Notability, although there is room for improvement, the article seems to have extensive coverage, and the reasoning provided by the OP is largely unconvincing. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 13:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - in agreement with Suriname0, there does seem to be some potential sources, but I have neither the time nor energy to fix this article. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Familial relationships of Errol Musk

Familial relationships of Errol Musk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Errol Musk is not in any way notable independent of his relation to Elon Musk. He ran for public office, but was never elected, but was only elected once to a local city council, he was an engineer, but didn't do anything of note. There is nothing about him is notable other than that he was the father of Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He ran for public office, but was never elected That's actually not correct, he was elected in '72 and served until the 80s. His 1983 resignation was front page news. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Ah I missed that, but that was a local city council. None of the people in my city council have wikipedia pages. Ergzay (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well he wasn't "just any" councilman, he was a vocally anti-apartheid English-speaking South African politician in 1972 Pretoria! Per Isaacson and many others, that's actually a really big deal in his time and place, but damned if I can find really good English-language sourcing which actually deep-dives into that part of his life story. Feoffer (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be great if there is a comparison on how vocal he was compared to the famous Helen Suzman. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a wikipedia page on even the contents of that 1972 city council? Did that 1972 city council do anything of note? Ergzay (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Errol Musk does not meet the notability guidelines despite his connection with Elon Musk. His career achievements and political work are not notable on their own. His main claim to fame is that he is the father of Elon Musk. It's crucial to adhere to WP:BLP, and keeping a separate article about only Musk's family does not meet these standards.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep*: He is an antiracist fighter AND elected representative AND father of Elon Musk - this 3 together is enough for a wikipedia page. 2A00:1110:143:1160:D1BF:A9E6:C3C3:862D (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have sources to prove this? "Trust me, bro" isn't quite what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor's comment obviously shows a deep unfamiliarity with AFD, but sourcing in the article does substantiate that Errol Musk was prominent leader then-embryonic anti-Apartheid movement. Feoffer (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ridiculous to have an article about someone's "familial relationships" without giving him his own article. Astaire (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's like when we do "Death of so-and-so" for notable deaths. It's a reminder to readers that the current article doesn't (yet) cover Errol's political career in the depth required of a true BLP. Feoffer (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A familial relationships article for Elon Musk would be more sane, in which case Errol Musk could be mentioned there, though I'd think it should still be just part of the Elon Musk article. Ergzay (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's an excellent point. I definitely think of it as a Elon sub-article: we don't need to litigate emerald mines and spousal abuse and false claims of funding or abandonment on Elon's literal BLP. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean by "Elon sub-article". If it's not valuable enough to put on the page on Elon Musk then it's probably not valuable enough to put on any page on Wikipedia. I'm not sure on this last point, but I think "biography of living persons" policies apply even if it's a spin-off of the main article. That's not a loophole of the rule. Ergzay (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:BLP:

    BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.

    Ergzay (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP absolutely applies to ALL articles, I just meant we shouldn't be covering a notable abuser on one of their victim's biographical articles. Feoffer (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. GNG is met, he's been covered extensively in the press and in-depth in at least two different books. Ultimately, it's not fair to Maye Musk or Elon Musk to document Errol's extensive controversial public behavior on those articles, but neither is it fair to them for us simply to delete that verified information from the project. I haven't found fulltext access, but Afrikaans newspaper archive searches and the Isaacson book show Errol was a VERY notable person during his political career, long before Elon was an adult. Errol has a second claim to notability for his allegedly abusive relationships with Maye and Elon. Finally, Errol again became controversial for a marriage to a former stepdaughter (cf Soon-Yi Previn). Feoffer (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Engineering, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this was notable, having it as a "familial relationships of" article makes 0 sense when it is basically a biography of him (focusing on his relationships because that's all the sources talk about!)
The only thing here that's not directly related to, or from publications about, Elon or his ex wife is the "having a child with his stepdaughter" thing which is not enough to have an article on PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your words carry lots of weight with me. Are you saying we should just move this content into a BLP titled Errol Musk? And if not, do you have an opinion on where we SHOULD cover what is known about Errol? We've got 4 different BLPs from folks reliably alleging abuse at Errol's hands. I know @Ergzay: expressed a preference for covering it at Elon's BLP, but it seems unfair to me to single out one victim like that, when it's a multidecade pattern of abuse that pre- and post- dated Elons interactions. Errol's later promotion of conspiracy theories and admission of fathering multiple children with a stepchild obviously lend credence to their prior allegations. Feoffer (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there's to be something here, it should be a BLP. The content in this article is basically a BLP already. I believe there was already an AfD for the initial Errol Musk article though.
An alternative could be some sort of... Musk family article? I mean, his family's certainly discussed and he's certainly not the only notable member. Singling out his dad, who does not have his own article, for an article to be based around, doesn't make much sense. But if it's notable as part of his whole family then maybe, idk.
I'm not sure if either of these ideas are good, though, or if either is notable. Your point about his political career making him notable is a possibility but until sigcov related to that is presented the jury's still out. Not impossible though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this feedback.
I probably should have said somewhere that this article was created to hold content removed in Musk family (which was deleted on June 1) which had been merged from Errol Musk (merged into Musk Family in Sept 2023). I concur that a full BLP should wait for the South African source, but in the mean time, the victims really do deserve for it to be SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia.(/?) Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what people "deserve". Please read WP:RGW. Astaire (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol fair enough, I'm not on a crusade. but it's still verifiable content with exculpatory BLP implications for Elon and Maye. Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this content may belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but the current article is too flawed to stand. If it is really about "familial relationships", why does it discuss his business career, his election to city council and his game lodge? Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system? Astaire (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system?
Because it contradicts the false claims in media (sourced to Errol) of Elon's supposed abandonment of a disabled parent. Feoffer (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including that content with that justification is a WP:OR issue, unless reliable sources explicitly note the contradiction themselves. Astaire (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any answer to your question about "why should anyone care" would be OR to put in article unless it was explicitly noted in RS. Feoffer (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Weird article. Creator claims that there is more coverage of him out there, so I don't think a full delete is warranted. Either way, the article is not ready for mainspace. If the consensus ends up being to delete, that would be fine by me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete I'm the one who submitted this, but I'm fine with either option. It doesn't make sense to have it as an article though. I'm not sure what moving it to a Draft could fix though. Ergzay (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpret draftify calls as me having jumped the gun by publishing it in mainspace before we got access to the sources on political career needed to make a full balanced BLP. I get it's an unorthodox title, but it's also a little bit of a blpvio to not document Errol's verifiably-checkered past somewhere, given his public attacks on family. I don't feel good about stuffing it all into the BLP of one of his victims. Feoffer (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The title is probably the biggest problem. Having an articles about the familial relationships of someone without having an article on the person themselves is a bit ridiculous. But there's lots of other issues beyond that, even if the page was moved, like the noteworthiness of the man himself and of anything he thinks beyond it's relation to Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Plenty of notable source material for an article about the man more so than his "relations", especially since Musk Family got effectively yeeted. QRep2020 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Errol Musk - Numerous sources discuss his own life, so that his bio would easily pass GNG. Surely his son's fame directed attention to him, just like Maye Musk, Kimbal Musk and Tosca Musk; we've got plenty of coverage for those individuals as well, who arguably wouldn't be notably featured in the press if Elon's life hadn't attracted so much scrutiny. Ironic that notability is not inherited, though in this case the hyper-notability of one person did engender notability of various family members... — JFG talk 10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is still no consensus. Of interest, is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musk family (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Musk. I don't think that this article can be moved to Errol Musk as that page has an extensive page history that shouldn't be deleted, there could be issues with attribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "strong consensus" but the link says "The result was redirect to Musk family. This appears to be the rough consensus to solve to the competing issues around notability." which doesn't add up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep and move to Errol Musk. He's notable for his career in business and politics as well as his noteworthiness in the news. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if this person is that important, they can have their own article. Don't remove the deletion tag on the article either; I've restored it. Most sources are about Elon and even use him in the title; there's maybe one source that's vaguely about Errol. Famous by association isn't what we're looking for. The familial relationships of a non-notable individual are not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Errol Musk. Errol Musk is notable, you don't inherit notability but becoming notable or more notable because you are someone's father is not inheriting notability as its understood for wikipedia's purposes its just notability. Even if you want to say that Errol gets signficant coverage because Elon is his son (or Maye Musk is his ex-wife, she was notable before Elon was ever born... Or because of his two other notable kids... Or are they all inherited notability from Maye? Or do we go one step further... If this is the road we're on why is Maye's notability not inherited from Joshua N. Haldeman?) he does get signficant coverage independent of Elon and other notable family members. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Family of Elon Musk (which bizarrely points to Musk (disambiguation), despite describing a discrete topic), and add some lines on the rest of the notable family members there. For comparison, see Family of Barack Obama, Family of Dwight D. Eisenhower. BD2412 T 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, the article at a similar page title was converted to a Redirect at the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musk family (2nd nomination). Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was clearly a wrong outcome, and one that can be righted by a right outcome here. "Family of Elon Musk" pointing to a disambiguation page is nonsensical. It is not an ambiguous phrase. It is also inherently misleading, as there are people related to Elon Musk whose surname is not "Musk", and who should never be listed on a disambiguation page for the word. BD2412 T 03:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem ideal. Feoffer (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa Proposed deletions

Also check the list at WP:PRODSUM


Tanzania

Tanzania proposed deletions


Tunisia


Uganda


Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Africa&oldid=1113647565"