Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Africa on Wikipedia 
Basic list - Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

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.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Africa}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Africa.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

Contents

[edit] Africa

[edit] Africa Proposed deletions


[edit] Egypt

[edit] Zaket

Zaket (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not in the standard academic king lists, no sources on Google Scholar or Google books, perhaps an old hoax but reliable sources don't list him. Doug Weller (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete by the article creator Hi sorry for the delay. If you check the list of pharaohs on the dynasty page back in June 2006 you'll see Zaket red linked. Clearly the person who red linked it was in error. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't find anything in Britannica or here (of course that doesn't mean he didn't exist as some king names are unknown). So I am delete per WP:VERIFY as not published by any known source. Anyway it's up to the editor really to find any reliable sources per WP:BURDEN. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I've posted a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt asking for sources regarding this supposed king. Not WP:CANVASS, I hope! As i've not mentioned the AfD debate. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think you could have drawn it to people's attention so long as you didn't comment on it. Doug Weller (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of WP:RS Zaket is not mentioned as a king of the 16th dynasty by any reliable published sources or by an Egyptologist. Moreover this web (not reliable) source indicates that Zaket was possibly a fictional king: [1] while this reliable academic site by the University College of London names no such king: [2] (scroll down to the 16th dynasty). I checked Nicolas Grimal's book, A History of Ancient Egypt, and no Zaket appears either for the 16th dynasty. Leoboudv (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I consulted the most updated book on the topic by Brill in 2006 called "Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies)" that was co-authored by Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss and David Warburton. They provide a chronology table on page 492 and state the 16th and 17th dynasty were all Theban kings with names like Nebiriau, Sobekhotep VIII, Bebiankh, the 3 Intef kings, 2 Taoside rulers and Kamose. No Zaket, which is an Asiatic name, is listed. Leoboudv (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Likely, the "missing" name is due to a spelling problem combined with very uncertain chronology during the second intermediate period. Digital Egypt gives Sakir-har as a king of the 15th dynasty--perhaps one and the same with our Zaket. During the 2nd Intermediate period especially, dynasties and spelling of names is a huge mess. Often, it's not clear whether the king belonged to one dynasty or another, and the name is usually transliterated by several different choices. Add to this that some kings may not have been real, and the problems worsen. For the record, as of now there are no mainspace pages that link to the article. In theory, articles about second intermediate period kings are legit topics, but since we can't determine which king the article is supposed to be about, I wouldn't object to deleting. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I checked the Digital Egypt site and Zaket isn't there. In contrast, Sakir-Har was indeed a real Hyksos king; we already have an article with clear sources on him. Unless there is clear evidence for Zaket's existence, the best option is delete. We can't have phantom kings on Wikipedia. No one disputes the existence of king Sheshi or Yaqub-Har but no verifiable source confirms Zaket's existence at all. Zaket may be WP:OR Leoboudv (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Cannot find any reference in the books I have at hand that reference a King Zaket. A reference I have (The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt) doesn't list any royal family member with that name. Likely spurious. Captmondo (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Faik Zaghloul

Ali Faik Zaghloul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A good faith search for references found nothing but Wikipedia for (Zaghloul "Egyptian Radio Magazine"), fails WP:N and WP:V. I came across the article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and as best as I can tell there is no evidence that anything in the article is true or accurate. I am not sure but I believe that even the Arabic version of the article [3] is unreferenced and tagged appropriately Jeepday (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. Let's not jump the gun. Seek advice from Arabic-speaking Wikipedians, as topics such as this may not have easily located English-language sources. Give it a few days, and please use discussion before resorting to tactics such as this; the article certainly doesn't seem like any type of hoax and we don't discriminate in our subject matter against Arabic topics. Badagnani (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:V.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree w/ rationale provided above by Jeepday (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is not cited, and thus unable to verify the claims being made (WP:V). Happyme22 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per number of ghits although I'm not sure how many of them may be wiki mirrors and such and I've only searched in english. The fact that the article has existed for 2 years without substantial improvement is worrying but, that in and of itself is not deletion criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: the Arabic language does not use the roman script, so this is not surprising. Whether for better or worse, Arabic-language radio announcers of yesteryear do not have excellent coverage on websites using latin-based scripts. Let's defer to our Egypt-based editors on this and seek their input--we do have a lot of them. Badagnani (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ghits for "علي فايق زغلول" -wikipedia = 136 results. I may be mistaken but most appear to be forums or blogs. Jeepday (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable (and) without sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I'm relisting this and adding it to the more general Middle East deletion sorting list in the hopes that we get some more feedback from knowledgeable folks (at this point anyone who reads Arabic could provide some insight). I was on the verge of closing this as delete because we simply don't have sources right now so the article fails WP:V, but we're operating in the dark and it won't hurt to give this another 5-7 days to see if someone can shed some light on this gentleman.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I was contacted as someone who knew Arabic to look for legit sources on this guy. I did an arabic search on him and got over 15,000 hits. Many of them were forums, yes, but many more were legitimate news sites. I think this article needs work from an Arabic speaker, not deletion. Wrad (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Is there a policy that goes with that? I looked all through WP:V and The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. I was not aware that we had separate verification requirements based on the nationality of or primary language of the subject of an article. But if you think there is a policy that say's unverified information can stay if there is some possibility it may eventually be found, please point me to it and I will immediately withdraw the request for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I've just verified you that it's notable enough to be an article. If it doesn't have refs on it, put a sources needed tag up. The answer then is to add sources not to delete. This article has the right to exist as verified by an arabic web search.
Why are you looking at WP:V for a deletion discussion? You should be looking at the deletion policy page, which says articles should be deleted if they "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" or if "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". This article no longer meets either of these criteria and should be kept. Language doesn't matter. Wrad (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ethiopia

[edit] Kenya

[edit] Nigeria

[edit] Proposed deletions

  • Tantalizers


[edit] South Africa

[edit] Police invasion of UCT campus

Police invasion of UCT campus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A POV, poorly-referenced rant, written mostly in first-person or as a memoir, of student unrest. Tagged unreferenced for over 15 months. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep: per TerriersFan and improvements to the article. Also, I have concerns about systemic bias in the deletion of this article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep or Merge/Redirect to University of Cape Town. This article could be salvaged with a drastic rewrite and significant improvement in sources, but as it stands, the article is problematic. The event is a notable one that should be included in the article for the University in a much shorter version, if the issues with the article cannot be addressed appropriately here. I am more than willing to consider my vote if the article's issues are addressed. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Vote has been modified to reflect improvements to article. Further work to make this a more thoroughly encyclopedic article is still needed. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Another instance where we should should be addressing the issues rather than throwing our hands up in horror and going for deletion. I have removed the section that recounts a student's recollection which is the worst of the POV. The Cape Times is a perfectly reliable source and the extract is informative, historic and confirms the accusations of censorship. The key claim to notability is that this (quoting from a reliable source here) "was the first time police had used gunfire to quell a student disturbance on a predominantly white campus." Additional reliable sources to verify, amongst other facts, the reasons for the protest can be found here. If, as I suggest, this clearly meets notability standards then I am happy to rewrite this as a sourced, encyclopedic page but noting the pile of delete !votes above, I am reluctant to put a lot of time into a page that will be wasted if it gets deleted. I await reactions. TerriersFan (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - OK; I have cleaned it up. I will add sources and additional content, as above, if deletion-commenting editors elect to change their views. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was asked to reconsider my !vote in light of some improvements. The article still has a long way to go. There is almost no discussion of events that predicated a police entry of the campus (the word "invasion" is POV; presumably the police had legal jurisdiction, whether or not they had previously exercised it). Riots? Student unrest? Peaceful protests? What were they protesting? What precipitated the police entry? What are our sources for the redactions and censorship? (I'm fully believing it, but we need sources.) Finally, there should be consideration of whether an overall context is a better focus, e.g. Student unrest in South Africa or 1982 apartheid protests (just general suggestions here). --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the reason for the protest is contained here and the Cape Times, a reliable source, reports the censorship. Much of what you are seeking can be found in the sources here. TerriersFan (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • merge somewhere appropriate. This is not significant enough fora separate article.DGG (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV poorly-referenced article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this should be re-listed, as most of the !votes were given before the revisions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. This is my first pass of the article, and I feel that none of the issues/problems noted previously have been addressed. I feel that the article's title, and its highly emotive tone are unsuited to WP. The article needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with clearer context or a better documentation of the origins. As it stands, there is only the Cape Times as a source, and details are scant due to censorship. The Cape Times as a source makes a big deal about not being able to publish certain details and photos. However, after looking at the NYT article, I feel that at best this is just another storm in a students' teacup to protest a military cross-border raid. All the rest appears to be speculation. I propose that the incident be written about in the UCT article, and later expanded into a separate, neutrally titled article as and when appropriate. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (as edited)
  • Weak Delete I rarely speak up for the deletion of any article. I believe this subject probably deserves an article, but this isn't it. Lack of WP:RS and POV problems abound, starting with the WP:NPOV title. We have a single source, admittedly unreliable by the virtue that it is censored. We have a complete lack of context where I can't even tell which students use the "upper campus." I would recommend somebody userfy this one and recreate it under a more appropriate title later. Jim Miller (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The event appears to have been notable, with significant coverage in at least two independant reliable sources. The title should be changed and the content improved, but those are not issues for AfD. There is a potential issue of systemic bias where information suppressed by a government is less well covered than it might have otherwise been, in which case the subject may be even more notable than the coverage might suggest, which is a further argument for keeping the article. If this event was part of a notable social phenomena in South Africa at the time then it could be merged into a more general article on that phenonema. But that merging can be done later outside of AfD once a suitable wider scope has been identified. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I lack enough knowledge of the subject to comfortably give an opinion of its viability, but if kept it most certainly must be retitled, as the current title is a violation of WP:NPOV as it indicates an opinion as to the event. Suggest an alternate word like "raid" be used instead. Also UCT means nothing outside a small region; the name should be spelled out in full. 23skidoo (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - certainly a rename is required. My suggestion is 1987 conflict at University of Cape Town but I am sure there are others. TerriersFan (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to 1987 in South Africa. Not noteworthy enough for a stand alone article, but deserves a mention here. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The subject meets the general notability criteria of having significant coverage in reliable independent sources. By what standard is it not noteworthy enough? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)