Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan-African Freedom Movement for East and Central 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pan-African Freedom Movement for East and Central Africa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, the page currently has no references. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is covered in plenty of reliable sources such as Cambridge University Press "Cambridge Core", Jstor, The British National Archives, The Union of International Associations, and here over 1 thousand books on the subject. It is quite evident that the nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. In my opinion, I think the nominator should withdraw this poor nomination and stop wasting everyone's time. I only found out about this nomination when working on related articles. The person who created the article is quite inexperienced going by similar articles they've created - albeit notable. They even resulted to adding sup tags as refs rather than inline because they do not know how to. I've been fixing those using inline citations which in turn led me here when I tried to link another article to this. Please kindly check for references yourself before tagging another article for deletion. Poor nominations lead to a waste of the community's time because we have to stop everything we are doing just to check for references and determine notability etc - something you could have done yourself before nominating. Can someone please close this silly nomination? Tamsier (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've also added reliable sources to the article. Article passes GNG. Tamsier (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to establish notability by means of the internet. We should be slow to remove articles about older organisations which Google may not know much about. Rathfelder (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2018 (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.