Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chirundu.com

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. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chirundu.com[edit]

Speedy, prod both declined as there are assertions of notability. However, the article still reads like an ad, and there don't seem to be enough sources available to demonstrate notability. BradV 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless non-notability can be shown, because it is not clearly an advertisment and because the page can be improved (WP:ATD). As far as I can tell, only two portions can plausibly sound like advertising: (1) "is probably the largest internet based community", and (2) the section "social importance". Portion (1), if the word "probably" is removed, would be third-party verifiable (WP:SOAP #4) and portion (2) is a statement about the benefits of social networking to the country and it is, if anything, a justification for the conitnued existence of the website rather than an advertisement for Zimbabweans to use the website.--Samuel Tan (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Keep unless non-notability can be shown" - non-notability is shown by the complete lack of third party sources. Beyond that, the burden of evidence should be upon those making the claim of notability. Mdwh (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is made by User:Chirundu, so WP:COI is probable. It also doesn't have any legit sources to back it's claims. All it has are two articles which aren't even directly about the site to begin with. One of the links addresses that "4 million Zimbabweans living abroad", and the other is a link to a font site which the logo is supposedly derived from. That's it. A quick google search doesn't pull up any reliable, independent sources either. The Social Importance section is obvious POV and original research. The Profiles and Logos section are really superfluous, and the section detailing the name (while encyclopedic) doesn't back up the subject of the article in terms of notability. The main section itself is probably the only real concrete thing there, but even that unless you find other sources detailing how popular it is, is hard to verify.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that the account that wrote this article has been indefinitely blocked, supposedly because of allegations of trying to advertise their product. This makes this AFD somewhat unfair, as they can't back up their assertions of notoriety. Myrrideon (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Despite my delete vote, I feel you make a valid point. The user was warned for spamming, e.g., [1], where AFAICT the links in question where those reverted at [2]. Firstly, these were links included in the article that user Chirundu wrote (as opposied to inserting spam links to an existing article), secondly a link to a website's URL is not considered spam when that site is the topic of the article (see Wikipedia:External_links), and thirdly, the other link was a reference (whilst it is probably unnecessary as a link, it was mostly likely a Good Faith edit, and should not be assumed as spam resulting in a warning or block). Mdwh (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB. Article does not provide sources necessary to assert notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but encourage editors with conflict-of-interest to refrain from editing it. LotLE×talk 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: original author had obvious conflict of interest. Also, it is blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:V. There is one source there that never mentions the website at all, meaning there are really zero sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to knock this one, given the situation in Zimbabwe today, but it fails WP:RS and WP:WEB too easily. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly G11 in my view. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Being the best of a country is always relevant. The most popular online website in the country is relevant. Zimbabwe right now is a nation in conflict, where the people don't have a voice, and where many of them have fled as refugees. Online communities like this provide that voice and are important. Similar to how the Dalai Llama is living in exile and is a well known figure now. This is a special situation and should be handled in a special way. The site has been about since 1996, and while the amount of traffic that they are getting ordinarily wouldn't be enough for an article, in this case I think it is. Myrrideon (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like spam, no references to verify notability, been up for over a month without such references being supplied. Ray Yang (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see above. The person that wrote the article was indef blocked for writing it, hence not allowed to make claims of notoriety. That is somewhat unfair then to have an AFD with no theoretical chance of fixing the article. Myrrideon (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was only blocked yesterday. This AfD has been open since July 3. BradV 14:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he had pretty much a whole week to make his case.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - This editor got tagged on May 23 to improve he article or risk having it deleted ... so there has been more than just a few days. Further, that was about the time of his last edit, and he was blocked for spamming. Not sure why it took so long. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author being blocked is immaterial. WP:WEB is clear. If this site were notable ANY editor should be able to find the evidence. It is a website. It's notability exists on the internet. If we can't find it there it isn't going to exist somewhere else.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. ~~A blocked user can always participate in AfD discussions (and in improving the article) anonymously.~~ UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't advocate block avoidance but if the blocked user truly had anything he could post it on his talk page.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources. This vote should not be taken to imply a delete vote on any future articles with the same or similar name - if third party sources can be found, then perhaps the article is worth having. Mdwh (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (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.