Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TunaHAKI

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 of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TunaHAKI

This article was created as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TunaHAKI Foundation, but this article, although about a charity that is 8 years older, suffers from exactly the same problems: no reliable sources (Google turns up hits, but only fundraising blogs, link sites and other propagation of the charity's own material, Factiva has nothing), no incoming links, and no assertion of notability: "they have formed an acrobatic troop which is well respected in their village" is a) unverified and b) not much higher than the claim of most local garage bands. I'm sure they do good work, but Wikipedia is not a directory of local charities any more than it is a directory of local businesses. 'Delete. Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 10:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• This is a tough one. Holding articles about African topics to the same standard of verifiability as ones about western topics, when there is a relative lack of African sources due to poor IT infrastructure, is an obvious case of systemic bias. Unfortunately, however, unless someone can come forward with a single, independent, reliable source that can confirm the charity isn't a hoax, I can't see any other option but to Delete. Road Wizard 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would point out though that if the verifiability problem was solved, the charity is much more notable than many of the American schools that have articles here. Road Wizard 06:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All articles must be held to encyclopaedic standards of verifiability. Countering systemic bias is about making sure we write about whatever is verifiable regardless of where it comes from, not relaxing standards. After all, Africa does have the Internet, and it has plenty of newspapers. As for schools, please don't WP:POKEMON. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... that seems quite an abrupt response and you also appear to have either misread or misunderstood what I wrote. I will assume good faith that the aggressive tone I am reading into what you have written is all my personal interpretation and not what you really intended. I will answer each of the points you have raised in turn.

All articles must be held to encyclopaedic standards of verifiability.

I never said they shouldn't. In fact, if you re-read my argument, you will notice that this is the reason I voted delete.

Countering systemic bias is about making sure we write about whatever is verifiable regardless of where it comes from, not relaxing standards.

Again, I never said anything about relaxing standards. My point was that reliable sources on topics related to Africa are much fewer in number and much harder to access than for similar topics in the USA. That we have to hold African articles to the same standards as other articles where sources are much more prevalent, regrettably results in fewer African articles being written. This is a bias induced by the system. However, the way to tackle the bias is not to lower standards, but instead to be aware of the bias and make even stronger efforts to try and identify sources than you would do for a similar article centred on a more economically developed region.

After all, Africa does have the Internet, and it has plenty of newspapers.

Yes, but how many people have internet access as a proportion of the total African population? Much less than the proportion of internet users in Europe, for example. Again, how many different papers per head of population and how widely available are they outside their primary area of publication? In the UK, I can go to a library in my town and pick up a wide selection of newspapers that were recently published in the USA; on the other hand, the number of African newspapers available to me is relatively small.

As for schools, please don't WP:POKEMON.

OK, I admit that I should have phrased that comment in a better way, but it was something I snapped off shortly before leaving for work. My point was that I was acknowledging that if we somehow get a reliable source to back up the article then it may be worthy of retention. I didn't think it was appropriate to go into a lengthy diatribe about why this page is notable when it is not yet verified, so I left just a quick note of my opinion. I will remember that Essay for use in the future, though I hope I will explain it a bit more clearly to the person I am aiming it at - perhaps by saying something like; You shouldn't use the notability of unrelated articles to justify the notability of another (see WP:POKEMON).

Well, this is the first time I have had to justify a vote of support to the person I am supporting. Quite an interesting turn of events. Hopefully I haven't said anything in this post that will trigger such a strong reaction. :) Road Wizard 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, but there is no notability here. A LexisNexis search yields no hits in the last two years. That means no journal or periodical has mentioned them, African or otherwise. Aguerriero (talk) 19:40, 9 June 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.