Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa Polling Institute


 * 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. Many assertions of notability, but entirely lacking in supporting evidence. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Africa Polling Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

When this was a draft it was declined by they helpfully left the author this feedback: "In the references, I see people citing polls conducted by API, along with interviews of API's director. These don't support notability. What we need are people writing about API." Regardless, the draft has been moved into mainspace, bypassing the Articles for Creation process, without addressing this concern. I have read through the references and none of them constitute in depth, independent, secondary coverage about the Institute. Therefore it fails to meet the WP:NORG criteria and should be deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm very sure this organization is highly notable with no any iota of doubt. Looking at the information used, there is no any promotional sentences, and the information is directly from the website where I acknowledged it there, and the references used are from highly independent reliable sources. As one editor who reviewed earlier said, he want to see people talking about API, there are numerous independent newspapers that talked about it which I used in the reference.


 * So to me, this article is highly notable and eligible to be in wikipedia. It has pass all the criteria and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You have stated that the article is "highly notable" without specifically detailing how it meets any notability criteria. Do not confuse notability with importance. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - This draft reads like an information brochure published by a non-profit organization. Not every non-profit is notable.  This is typical of non-profit drafts that I would decline in AFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Africa polling institute article has more than ten references with full coverage of secondary independent sources. And there is not any promotional sentences or words. So for that reason. API is notable to be in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 09:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You continue to misunderstand the difference between a newspaper article mentioning Africa Polling Institute (such as that API has produced a report on a recent poll) and being about API, such as the history of the Institute, the impact it has had on society, etc. An interview with someone who talks about the Institute doesn't count towards notability because the person is not independent. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Lacks suitable sources to pass GNG which also means that the content is just a self description.   I said "weak" because all factors considered, it wouldn't be too crazy to give it a pass. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2020 (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.