Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Develop Africa charity


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Develop Africa charity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP - I can't find any independent coverage that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The sourcing on the page at present is mostly directly related to the charity; the independent sources give either very little or no coverage. I also note that a similarly named page (Develop Africa), created by the same editor, was speedily deleted a few days ago. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. Skirts89 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - article was updated and contains at least 3 independent sources including Amazon, Google Books, etc. Now it has 16 sources, much more than other charities with only 1 or no reference, published years ago, for example Dr. Harry F. Moniba Foundation, Feed My Lambs, ChildVoice International, ICCF Holland, etc.FrantisekKorbel (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As discussed here, the Amazon, Google books etc sources do not demonstrate notability - they simply show that the head of this charity has self-published some books, none of which have been reviewed or discussed in reliable sources. At AfD, we discuss each article on its individual merits, not in comparison with other (potentially problematic) articles about other subjects. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are now 16 references and from the YouTube channel you can see, that this organization is very useful and should be on Wikipedia DevAfrica (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that this account's username is very similar to the name of the organisation that is the subject of this article, and that this comment is their first contribution to Wikipedia. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Girth Summit is focused to make us think that 16 sources do not contain 2 independent, but he did not notice that previously listed charities has no independent source: Dr. Harry F. Moniba Foundation, Feed My Lambs, ChildVoice International, ICCF Holland. Why is he so strict about Develop Africa charity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.34.130 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, 46.135.34.130, I am assuming that you are the same person previously editing as DevAfrica now that your account has been blocked. Let me just be clear that the only reason I raised this AfD discussion because I reviewed this article, and judged it not to meet our guidelines on notability. I have not reviewed the other articles that you are bringing up - it's very possible that they also have problems, which may be addressed in time, but shortfalls in other articles is not a reason to ignore shortfalls in this article. Please keep this discussion focussed on this article, without pointing to flaws in others.
 * There are indeed sixteen sources currently used in this article - there are references to the charity's own website, there are references to the website of The Pencil Project, which the charity is directly involved with, there is a YouTube video on the charity's YouTube account, there are Amazon and Google books links to books self-published by the charity's director, there is a link to 'The Dream Home' project, which the charity is also directly involved with, there are crowd sourcing pages asking people to donate money to the charity, there is a press release by a law firm that donated some misprinted pens to the charity... There appear to be two actually independent sources - both of them giving one-line passing mentions to the charity. Details for sources required to write about an organisation can be found at WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm sorry, but none of this comes anywhere close to that. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article is recently a stub, but charity activities are promising and new references will be available - this apply also to other charities without references 46.135.47.194 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to IP editors It's a bit strange that two similar IP addresses, (both registered to Vodafone Czech Republic) should show up at AfD independently and, never having edited any other article, vote on this. Strange also perhaps that 46.135.47.194's first edit was to put a charity stub tag on the article - that's not something that most new users know how to do.
 * Guy/s, this isn't a vote. It doesn't matter how many accounts/IPs come along saying that the charity's activities are useful/promising/importantant etc. To influence the decision you need to show that the charity currently meets the notability requirements, linked to above. If you can show significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources, to a standard that meets WP:CORPDEPTH, then I will happily withdraw this nomination. I have looked pretty hard however, and can find nothing that meets the required standards. Girth Summit  (blether)  07:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. No independent, reliable sourcing to substantiate notability, offered or to be found. WP:NOTPROMO --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. There does not appear to be significant coverage from reliable independent sources (among the existing references or elsewhere). The remaining arguments to keep seem like anti-patterns such as WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Colin M (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 25 February 2019 (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.