Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color Africa


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Color Africa

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be non-notable. Mostly irrelevant Ghits for "color africa". Two irrelevant Ghits for "color africa" "one campaign". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Was previously speedied under CSD A7. However, author claims articles about the organisation by The Independent and Amarillo Globe News are in the pipeline. Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If what the creator says it true, possibly delay the deletion. Nevertheless is does need a big cleanup and wikify. SGGH 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball; we can't keep stuff because sources may be in the pipeline. This can be deleted and then recreated, if and when sources are found or written. Trebor 23:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Once it is up and running with third party verification then it may be notable Maustrauser 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete until the supposed sources show up. We can't take chances with verifiability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Can anyone tell me how much information needs to be out there in order to keep a page like this active? Are you looking for one verifying article, ten of them or more? Or am I simply way off on what makes this verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ctbrons (talk • contribs).
 * Generally speaking, we're looking for multiple articles in reliable sources. Color Africa should be the focus of the article, not merely mentioned or listed within it, and the article can't be a press release or based on one.  Two such articles would be the absolute minimum, and the more the better.  Four or five would be excellent. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find a good way to think of it this: A wikipedia article should be catered for the researcher, if the article puts all the useful information from a number of good sources together, it is of help to a researcher because he/she doesn't need to go looking at all of them. If it is merely giving the same information as it's one source, the researcher could just look there instead and the wiki article is a little superfluous, if you see what I mean? SGGH 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The organisation was created only few months ago. No indications of notability earned in such a short timespan. Julius Sahara 18:51, 23 January 2007 (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.

You can now view articles that have been independantly written about Color Africa through links that are provided at www.colorafrica.com/news.html. Please let me know if I can now recreate this entry. 66.142.0.134 22:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)