Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chamber of Commerce (Douala)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Chamber of Commerce (Douala)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Aside from the one web source this article cites, I could only find one other direct mention of the subject in a source, and it was only two sentences of information. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ermm, keep, per WP:CSB if nothing else. But it is clearly notable: almost 8000 hits on Google books, many of them genuine, about 220 real hits on Google (out of 257000 claimed), numerous news stories. It appears to have been called at various times "Chambre de Commerce du Cameroun", "Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie du Cameroun", "Chambre de Commerce, d'Industrie et des Mines du Cameroun", and "Chambre de Commerce, d'Industrie, des Mines et de l'Artisanat du Cameroun". This last appears to be the current name and should probably be the title of our page unless substantial evidence is found for a commonly-used English-language equivalent. The text, which appears at first sight to be a copyright violation, is I think covered by OTRS ticket (that is a complex ticket and I've not checked every part of it). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But are the hits for the organisation or the building? The building is the focus of the article, not the actual Chamber of Commerce (which has all those other extended names). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are way more mentions if one searches in French.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just searched in French, but none are non-trivial coverage of the structure; they are all mentions of the organisation. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes,, the article (like all most articles added as part of "WikiAfrica") needs to be substantially rewritten – the wp.fr page gives an idea of what such an article might look like – but the topic is notable. Did you look at the source I added to the article for coverage specifically of the structure? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ... and re-ping after ping fail – sorry, it's late and I am tired. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On what basis is the topic notable? I simply can't find enough non-trivial coverage about it. You described the source you added as "1 possible ref as further reading". Can you confirm that this source actually discusses the building in a non-trivial manner? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No,, I can't – or I would have added it as a reference rather than as further reading. Of course, we could assume in good faith that the editor who added it to the fr.wp article had actually seen it. You are asking, I think, specifically about the building; but an institution does not consist only of a building. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * from the lead: "The Chamber of Commerce situated in Douala, Cameroon is a building" [emphasis added]. The article is about the building, not about the institution. That is why I am judging the building by notability standards (hence my reference to WP:GEOFEAT). An article about the institution would be separate, especially seeing as it might be situated in a new building at this point – I can't be sure. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that is easily fixed by editing; there's no need to delete a notable topic to remedy it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you're suggesting would be an entire change of subject for the article, from the building to the institution. The infobox would need to be removed, the lead changed, and almost all of the body excised. If we make such an about-face turn, I don't see why we can't just create a new page for that topic and delete this one. We'd be creating an entirely new article. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also now that I've looked into it, I'm having a hard time finding substantial coverage about the Chamber. Most sources' mention it in the context of other things. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. A 1920s Art Nouveau building in Africa! Clearly notable to any student of architecture. I think a little common sense has to be applied at AfD. Is it really likely there'll be that much coverage of a building in Cameroon? I can pretty much guarantee that if this was in a Western country it would be heritage listed and would therefore easily pass WP:GEOFEAT. So WP:CSB also needs to be taken into consideration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to BLUDGEON here, but I honestly find that this argument isn't strong enough. If the building currently cannot be found to be given protected/culturally significant status, then we can't keep the article based off of that principle of GEOFEAT. We can't just suppose that "if this was in a Western country it would be heritage listed". That's an assumption, and it doesn't fall in line with policy. CSB isn't, far as I know, a rationale for keeping an article, and using it to keep an article sounds a lot like trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. For the record, I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo and would like to see more Africa coverage (plus the Congo has plenty of old art deco architecture), but we can't do that without the necessary sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Necrothesp.--TM 14:41, 20 December 2017 (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.