Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Press Organization


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

African Press Organization

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Copyvio, promo, COI, not notable Troyster87 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd argue that this is notable, even though it's just a press release mill, it's quoted by other organizations, like the WHO. Nothing a bit of copyedit can't fix. § FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is notable in Africa and this is not Wikipedia USA editoion. --hnnvansier (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For reasons mentioned by the two people posting keep above me.  D r e a m Focus  16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to fail WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep News agency UPI, AP, and Reuters would be far easier to source for us, but that's because they're western press organizations and have been around so very long. It would seem that the APO is doing the same thing but in a different hemisphere. Any concern with content can be corrected with WP:CLEANUP. So tag for expansion and let the article grow within the WP:DEADLINE set by wiki.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability has not been established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects, do we have only 5 days to do so with a brand new article? I do understand that new articles are sometime lacking, but if it notability can be sourced, isn't it in the best interests of wiki that we allow time for it to be done?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, five days is more than adequate; the article shouldn't have been created at all without establishing notability. No, it's not in the best interest of a project which strives to be a legitimate resource to allow unreferenced information to remain. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per FreeRangeFrog. — Reinyday, 07:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm unconvinced by any of the reasons given for keeping this (but willing to be convinced). Searches for reliable sources in English and French find nothing substantial . I'm a very strong advocate of countering systemic bias, but I don't see why we should give any particular leeway to an organisation based in Switzerland, a country that has very good internet coverage. In fact we would be perpetuating systemic bias by keeping this, by implying that a European organisation claiming to represent the African press is more notable than African organisations. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Seems to fail in some areas, but I'm sure there are sources somewhere. Versus22 talk 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable organization that fails WP:N. WP:N doesn't discriminate either way based on nationality, and we should not assume that there are magical sources out there that are invisible to our eyes if we can not find them. Themfromspace (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Apparently, they organised the press relations for Kaddafi's visit to France: . Alain Joyandet, Minister of State for Cooperation and Francophony, met with the head of the APO last month: (It's a google cache, so I'm not sure how long the link will last). This seems to indicate some notability, albeit minor. However, I haven't found a single reliable source (searching in English, French, German), so it's going to be impossible to do anything but repeat their press releases.  yandman  08:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google returns evidence of notability.  Is a real and a significant organisation.  Need to consider countering systematic bias against non-western non-internet subjects.  The bias reflects the people interested in, and of interest of the organisation, not the location of its offices.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2009 (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.