Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa time

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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Africa time

Africa time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism; no reliable sources re WP:NEO Yamara ✉ 01:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is not just a colloquialism[1][2] [3] but it is one that has entered politics and broader social discussions about modernization.[4][5] There are Google Books and Google Scholar hits showing that it has cultural or even linguistic roots (literally "no concept of time") and even an entire book on a somewhat broader topic that has extensive discussion. It's more commonly known as African time, though, so a move is advised. (Please use a search engine next time.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly used a search engine, and the first several dozen hits are to blogs and travel sites. As my comments on the talk page made clear, I have long been well aware there are unique aspects to the understanding of time in Africa. The collegian's travelogue and the American restaurant review you list would not meet the notability standards. The Telegraph reiterates the Reuters story the article is based on. The Zambia Times and Global Politician cites are very new, and did not appear when I searched on the 12th, though neither give much insight beyond using the colloquialism. Most interesting is the 1994 Adjaye book you cite, which relates the term "Colored People's Time" to "African-time" (p. 208) CPT is "not an inherent disrespect for punctuality". This is in contradiction to the use found in the article and certain of your Google finds. A new meaning is therefore a neologism. At the very least, the article is sufficiently flawed to be incorrect. Perhaps the article creators could please use the search engine themselves. —Yamara ✉ 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize for suspecting you did no searching at all, but by (only just now) pointing me to your talk page comment there seems to be a large dollop of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: you say you're suspicious of any "positive" aspects of this phrase, but an encyclopedia doesn't care if it's positive or negative; we just document what secondary sources tell us. You also cite good old fashioned racial prejudice, although this does not begin to explain why Africans are using the phrase among themselves or in political campaigns to improve their productivity (or at least perceived productivity; see also similar campaigns in Spain and Mexico against the siesta). As for the Adjaye discussion, it is substantive and scholarly, providing a foundation for a full-fledged article. I have no idea why the fact that it contradicts something in the article means that the article should not exist -- this is clearly an editing and attribution issue. And it's good that you resorted to tags first, rather than AFD, but you only waited a few days. Do you really find that articles are fixed that quickly when you tag them? This seems unrealistic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• My comment is followed by a larger dollop of NPOV: this doesn't mean the phrase isn't used, or can't be the subject of [an] article, but it has to have more depth than an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry. I presented a neologism here for WP:PROVEIT ("removed aggressively"), not repeated questions as to my capacities and motivations (which address nothing). I've just been involved in throwing a current Canadian politician's article off Wikipedia for lack of notability (and copyvio), so a neologism from a 4-month-old Ivorian campaign seemed questionable on that basis. "Africa time"—without the "n"—remains a questionable English neologism, (unlike the centuries-old Spanish noun la siesta). BTW, it's all well and good that you have begun to build acceptable cites for "African time" in the article; I'm pointing this out, so no one is taken by surprise before making any judgments they on this entry. —Yamara ✉ 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Odd word struck out--Yamara ✉ 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Good faith nomination granted (I still think it was a pretty short time to wait, though). I really don't know where your idea that this term is just four months old comes from, especially since you say you did some searching. As for this petty distinction you're making between "Africa time" and "African time", please do consider my recommendation for a move. WP:SOFIXIT. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should the article survive the AfD, I will insist upon a move, thank you. —Yamara ✉ 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is a valid topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia. John Reaves 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "[A]n encyclopedia doesn't care if it's positive or negative" This is not true we has the WP:NPOV. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment So we can't write about subjects where there's any sort of bias? How does the article violate NPOV? Please be specific. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That is not what I said. What I said was that all reputable encyclopedias care if the writing is positive or negative. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment and I certainly did not imply that our writing should violate neutrality. The question was whether a term having (for example) only negative connotations belongs. Even if that were true of this, it would still belong because it is discussed in reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Nom describes it as a neologism. It's not. Very widely used in Africa when I was there as a girl MANY years ago in the 1950s. It's a real and common phrase - perhaps not in North America, but certainly in Africa. 128,000 ghits. Some fair references in the article and it was used on Sky News just this moment! Anjouli (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. sources establish term's notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Africa is a continent, not a country. The vague, slightly patronizing, "Africa time" can gain a dictionary definition, but not in any sense an encyclopedia article. The latter would require a discussion of culture and such, and that cannot be done with a continent. I could write about Native Alaskan tribes and particular attitudes toward time in them, but I would be an idiot to try to make that "indigenous peoples of North America." That's what's going on here. Impossible. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment How does this meditation relate to whether the article meets Wikipedia standards? --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a real phenomenon, with both some negative (esp. in the business world) and some positive (esp. on the personal level) associations. Sources are in place for both negative and positive connotations, even if links to blog posts have been removed. The first sentence is modified to be a more neutral description on the relaxed attitude to time, so that the article doesn't start with a negative tone. Geographically, this phenomenon seems to apply to several cultures in several parts of Africa (at least West and East Africa). While this does not mean every person, nor every culture, or even every country, it doesn't seem out of place to associate a term loosely to a continent. (A move to "African time" might be appropriate, though - I don't have an opinion on that.) Ingvald (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There were never any blog posts used as references in the article; I only mentioned them in my AFD comments. I would agree there are opportunities to change the wording. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please consult the history. There were six blogs/forums quoted up to 9 October 2007 by the creator of the article (externally linked, posted as "Quotations"; there were no "References".) These were all removed by another editor. —Yamara ✉ 01:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I stand corrected. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as sufficiently documented. DGG (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (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.