Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa Check

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. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Check[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Non-notable couple of months old website, wiki entry created without any substantial sources and pushed by single editor Caul shivers (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This appears not to be a WP:GOODFAITH nomination. The article is well-sourced with reliable sources including The New York Times and Voice of America. The nomination may be motivated by the WP:POV in South African farm attacks and the edit war I do not want to engage in here. Note also that the nomination was made by an IP 146.90.47.98, which is pretty much a single purpose followed by the creation of a single purpose account Caul shivers. I am One of Many (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article isn't exactly neutral and sounds vaguely spammy (it exists "to improve fact checking and news gathering in Africa"; how neutral!), but it's clearly notable, and comparatively little work would be needed to make it neutral. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I discovered Africa Check when I ran across South African farm attacks and did a search on this topic. I decided to do further research on Africa Check to see if it is a reliable source and I found that it appeared to be notable but didn't have an article. I modeled the article roughly on FactCheck.org. I don't want it to come across as spammy, I just summarized what I found in the sources. I am One of Many (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per significant coverage in The Economist and Voice of America. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2013 (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.