Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/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 delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Africa Christian Textbooks (ACTS)

Company that operates a couple bookstores and publishes religious texts. No results for "Africa Christian Textbooks" in major African news sources in LEXIS-NEXIS. Very few Google hits. Andrew Levine 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Looks legit. Fails WP:CORP but CORP is very unyielding for small companies in out of the way places. I would vote weak keep, but the article itself is not stellarly encyclopedic. -- cmh^TC 04:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. WP:CORP doesn't make reference to any particular country, and coverage by Nigerian sources is no less satisfactory than coverage by any other sources. What is unyielding is FUTON bias, but that's nothing to do with WP:CORP and everything to do with how well editors perform research. WP:CORP even makes special note that published works in all forms are acceptable. Uncle G 11:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probably a legit company, but not notable enough, I feel. The article has the strong aroma of being an ad about it, too. Lankiveil 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
• weak delete per cmhBenon 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability ReverendG 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Kappa 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)"
• Delete NN company. Arbusto 02:54, 15 September 2006 (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.

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gomaa

Unless somebody can prove this article's worth and salvage it, it would not seem to be an important topic and should be deleted. Also, the person seems to have created it for themself and it does not seem to be worth fixing and maintaining such an unimportant article. queso man 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've been convinced to withdraw my nomination - if I can, that is. But it still has to be cleaned up and moved --queso man 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Look at it! Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to No Vote until something resembling an article can be created. Danny Lilithborne 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a google search of "Gomaa Frahat" returns nothing, and "Gomaa Farhat" only returns 26 hits, none of them particularly impressive. Delete per WP:BIO. --Daniel Olsen 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Unless a decent source emerges. Appears to be a cartoonist for "the second oldest daily newspaper in the Arab world" (Al-Ahram). However, meaningful information about him in english does seem to be nonexistant though... not sure what we'd base an article on, or where the creator of this article got his information. Move to Gomaa Farhat if kept. --W.marsh 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Try Googling him under the spelling "Gomaa Farahat", which gets a few relevant hits. [1] I made a partial attempt to clean up the article but we need verification of the content. --Metropolitan90 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment per Metropolitan90, the article may have notability. Ye gods, this was painful to get through - the subject's name is apparently misspelled. I got only 26 Ghits from "gomaa farhat" not "frahat", and of those 14 are distinct. BUT, his editorial cartoons have apparently gotten printed in the Los Angeles Times per this boycott site, so if this is correct he's internationally syndicated. Farhat is also cited in this French "Arabs Against Discrimination" website. I think we need someone better in tune with the Mideast (or the L.A. Times) to give us some background on this guy. Tychocat 10:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment French "Arabs Against Discrimination" article is but a public petition to world public opinion. Ohconfucius
• I'm aware of what the article is, the point I was trying to make is that it appears from the boycott site that Farhat/Farahat is internationally published as an editorial cartoonist. If this is true, and we still need confirmation on this, then it'd be an indicator for notability. Tychocat 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Tychocat. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tychocat, WP:BIAS etc. While unverified, the article seems to make a fine case for notability. This site seems helpful. Move to Gomaa Farahat, apparently his full name. Flag for attention from someone familiar with editorial cartoons in Arabic. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability requirements aren't waived just because someone is from a non-english speaking country. --W.marsh 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. At first I couldn't even tell from the article that it was about a person. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not really notable. Also, if the article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite, and with lack of source, how can that be done. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Seems notable on the surface. Agreed that there may be systematic bias. As he has apparently been published in 120 American newspapers, including Herald Tribune International, English Times, El Luvracion and the Canadian Garette, we should be able to verify easily. Gsearch for Gomaa cartoonist produces the most relevant hits, which he shares with Pakistani cartoonist Ali Gomaa. A NYTimes search gave one hit here for Goma Farahat, but I cannot view the whole article. Searching the NYT photos and graphics library under "Gomaa" reveals 81 cartoons by the artist, Daryl Cagle is familiar with his work, and has a page on his website dedicated to his work, which at least proves the subject is known outside of Egypt. The appearances of his work in newspapers, and his awards remains to be proven. Seems that there is no need to move the article as he draws under the name of "Gomaa". Additional comment: There may be errors in publication names: Canadian Garette noGhits, Canadian Gazette is a govt publication which is unlikely to carry cartoons; no ghits for "Luvracion". The article has been tidied up and links added. Ohconfucius 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough. Must avoid systemic bias. :) Dlohcierekim 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable enough.--Kitrus 12:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. bbx 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an internationally syndicated cartoonist, this person meets WP:BIO from what I can tell. RFerreira 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:V, and WP:NOR. While I am flattered people conceded my research, I thought I had made it clear that verification and documentation was still required. I delayed my nom in hopes someone more versed in these things could produce verification. Oh well. The fact Gomaa "seems" notable enough ignores these points very severely. The Cagle website, while very suggestive, does not definitely establish he is actually published internationally, rather than just being pushed around editors' desks. No one has shown he's been published in either the L.A. or N.Y. Times, despite the hints and implications. This is supposed to be a scholarly work, not gossip, and if the documentation isn't there, I can't support a keep nom. 15:32, 6 September 2006 (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.

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. (aeropagitica) 10:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Districts of Eritrea

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article appears to be. Hires an editor 20:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Part of a series. All it needed was tidying up, which I have now done. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but the data source needs to be verified! An alternative is e.g. [2] Dlyons493 Talk 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not a paper encyclopedia ReverendG 05:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would like to see some more content to flesh this list out a bit, but geographical lists of something as basic as a district are not indiscriminate. Organized by region and with redlinks, this thing is not redundant with a category either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 29 August 2006 (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.

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 and redirect to Ethiopian Airlines. —Xyrael / 16:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheba Miles

advert for airline, deprodded without comment. -Steve Sanbeg 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Ethiopian Airlines after removing the advertising puffery. The existence, name, and basic details of the frequent flyer program should be in the airline article. NawlinWiki 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per NawlinWiki. Leuko 03:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Several other frequent flyer programs have articles. Merge as above. Comment: big chunks of cut-and-paste from here and here make up 95% of the article. Mr Stephen 08:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Ethiopian Airlines. It's spam and also copyvio, but can be made relevant and unoffensive by applying a redirect as suggested. Ohconfucius 03:10, 26 August 2006 (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.

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. (aeropagitica) 09:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed pervaiz siddiqui

Article claims that he is a prominent businessman; "one of the richest men in East Africa". He might very well be notable, but I am unable to find any references to verify notability. Relevant policies and/or guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS. -AED 06:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Zero nexis hits, which means that he has never been mentioned in the New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, etc. Access to a similar database of African press would be nice but, absent that, I will work from the data I have. The man is not so very rich as to be notable. Uucp 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment— Saddens me to see myself vote for deletion of a third world article since we are so first world centric. But lacking help from someone who can cite sources, we are almost compelled to delete as unsourced and potential a hoax. Left notice at User talk:AED in hope that this user can provide some insight on sources. Williamborg (Bill) 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not sure why you contacted me. I've nominated the article for deletion due to lack of sources. -AED 03:11, 29 August 2006 (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.

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 no consensus. --Ezeu 18:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jigawa ethanol programme

This page is an advertisiment, a campaign speech, an unencyclopedic entry. Speaks of unproven benefits contrary to wikipedia not being a crystal ball as well. Indrian 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Bill.matthews 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in its present form. It should be noted that this text had been proposed as an Article for Creation and was declined. It was then created despite this declining. The subject itself may be deserving of an article, but it needs to be written from scratch and properly sourced. Thus, I propose if deleted here, it be without prejudice, in case someone decides to write a proper article. Akradecki 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a press release, not an encyclopedia article. Once the program has begun, then perhaps there'll be something to say about it. As it stands, though, it doesn't sound like anything more than a blue-sky proposal. Zetawoof^(ζ) 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletions. -- Kappa 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Once the program is actually implemented, it might ecome notable. Not much at google. This just looks like promotional material to build support for the thing. WP is not a soapbox :) Dlohcierekim 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "PRESIDENT Olusegun Obasanjo Tuesday flagged off the ethanol project "... "Already Jigawa State government has provided a 10,000 hectres for the planting of industrial sugar cane spread across the wet land areas of 10 local governments in the state" Kappa 23:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. I found one article on it to compliment the one in our article. There seems to be enough that we can verify from reliable sources, especially taking WP:CSB into account. William Pietri 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I do agree that as it stands now the material is not written for wikipedia however it contains information which could be used to improve a future article. I also agree that the point about WP:CSB is a valid reason for having an article on the topic. AndrewBuck 20:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep content but preferrably not the present way: this belongs in an article that either shows current politics, economics, etc with ongoing changes in Nigeria, or a historical overview (or detail) on major Nigerian projects, or an overview of African agriculture/oil/..., or a worldwide view on gaining oil from agricultural products. Do not expect quick reactions and improvements for articles from non-English-speaking and/or developing countries as one may expect from the US or Great-Britain (WP:CSB) - an article like this has a signal function. At the appropriate moment, the content should be available and easily found by search operations, thus definitely do not destroy it. Meanwhile, the boxes at top of the article can sufficiently warn readers of the shortcomings. — SomeHuman 20 Sep 2006 18:34 (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.

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 - discussions as to a possible redirect or merge can take place on the talk page. Yomangani^talk 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Ventersdorp

Event described is not notable (insignificant civil march not a battle), no pages link to it. Deon Steyn 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. MER-C 07:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was a significant moment in the transition from apartheid when the AWB were still threatening civil war. Against the in-depth coverage given to various marches in African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) there's a lot more to be written about what happened in South Africa. Think about systemic bias. --Mereda 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable event unless some more verifiable, independent citations can be provided. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Dammit! If only I knew my own history...Delete The article itself does not provide evidence of notability, nor is this event inherently notable. Redirect to Eugène Terre'Blanche Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging as a plausible search term, and per this "related article" Google search. Zunaid 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant event. The article now includes a citation to back up the claim of notability. It was a significant event in far-right opposition to the ending of apartheid. This and similar events led President FW de Klerk to call a referendum, in order to neutralise the right-wing populist claim that negotiations were not supported by the white electorate. The article can still be improved, of course. Redirecting to Eugene Terreblanche is not appropriate - it was far more than simply an event in Terre'blanche's life. Zaian 09:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – Even if it is notable enough, it doesn't warrant a separate article and it could be redirect/merged to AWB (the organization holding the march) and mentioned there. --Deon Steyn 09:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If the person who proposed the deletion based on non-notability no longer disputes that this is a notable event, then the original deletion proposal doesn't seem to hold much weight. Not warranting a separate article makes it a candidate for merge, expand, or similar, but not for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. Zaian 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong, if still say it is non-notable and definitely not worthy of a separate article. Deon Steyn 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the nomination, the article has been heavily extended and improved, adding context, sources, and evidence of notability. Deletion is obviously no longer appropriate, and personally I don't think a merge is appropriate either. Zaian 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was an event which attracted worldwide coverage at the time and its outcome was crucial in the way in which South Africa dismantled Apartheid. A further element of notability is asserted in the article in that it was "the first time white extremist groups had been forcefully opposed by the South African security forces". JASpencer 07:39, 14 October 2006 (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.