Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa Justice Foundation

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 delete‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Africa Justice Foundation

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Africa Justice Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This organization, which existed from 2010 to 2018, is simply not notable. It fails WP:ORGSIG. There is no evidence it ever did or achieved anything other than conduct a short-lived programme of advocacy. Most of the sources are primary or self-published, with a bunch of pieces penned by Cherie Blair, who was one of the founders, several corporate website links, a companies house link (which is just a registration profile), some dead links, and a few more that fail verification. Altogether pretty dismal sourcing, and no significant coverage. Even with the sourcing being largely primary, there is still nothing to really suggest that the organization ever actually achieved or impacted anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep --the two citations to The Independent along with this one from The Guardian are more than sufficient to meet the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Central and Adams: Only one of those Independent citations mentioned the subject; the second was just about Suella Braverman in relation to the recent Rwanda business in the UK. I've removed the problematic one for clarity's sake, though this is it in case you want to double check it for yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the principle here was WP:THREE then by that metric and those sources it fails. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• FYI: "WP:THREE" is not a community-approved policy, guideline or even essay. That's a link to one editor's opinion in user space:
  • User:RoySmith/Three best sources

Articles are not required to meet RoySmith's requirements. I'm not saying there's anything the matter with them; they're just not binding here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I do see editors using it as a rule of thumb at AfD, and when people cite three sources, it naturally comes to mind. In any case, if there are less than three good sources ... that's no great. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

More a standard AfD request that someone took the time to write down than any attempt at policy. There are often lots of sources, and asking for the three best provides a handy way to get a sense for notability. (Three being sufficient for any of the notability criteria). Sometimes you need to consider more than three, and sometimes two is good enough (although that's pretty rare). To interpret what I suspect Iskandar323 means: "if those are the three best sources no the subject, that doesn't bode well for its notability". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - The only in-depth sources about the subject were written at the time of its launch, which means there's almost nothing we can say about its actual activities and impact. Most of the coverage seems more about one or both of the people behind it rather than the organization, including the Independent article, which is really about Braverman. Maybe it could be expanded in the article about her or Blair (although neither is a clear redirect target over the other, hence delete rather than redirect). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Delete It was short lived and I agree with Iskandar that there are no claims of notability. In addition to what was mentioned I was only able to find a passing mention in this book In my opinion, if no additional sources are presented, there is not enough in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources to establish its notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Merge what material can be salvaged into the articles of the subject's cofounders. - Indefensible (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2023 (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.