Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunn Mabika Hove


 * 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 speedied G7  by TexasAndroid ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (TW)). Guess that's that. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dunn Mabika Hove

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Likely hoax; sources have no content relevant to the subject.  HurricaneFan 25  21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Neither "Dunn Mabika Hove" or "Paris Checherere" scores any hits on Google Books, Scholar or News, and this article is the only Google hit on the entire web.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There are much less proiminant individuals (non-African) on Wikipedia who are there even though they have a much smaller impact on the lives of ordinary people. Africa has the least access to internet in the world and so you can't expect all prominant individuals to have links to articles somewhere on the internet. Check African newspapers (most of which are still not online), check archives, read the books or articles cited here before deciding this person is not worthy. We in Africa are not impressed by the assumption that our stories have been told on the internent or other places typically accessible to the developed world. Where will we tell our stories if not here? I have a taught Zimbabwe liberation history for over 30 years and was pleased to see this article. Aeneas Chigwedere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.247.184 (talk)
 * Do not Delete. Deleting this will only highlight the bias that Africans of prominance are not worthy of Wikipedia.
 * It appears that this anonymous IP, which geolocates to South Africa, is claiming to be a Zimbabwean provinical governor and former education minister. That seems unlikely, and rather strengthens the case for this being a hoax.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the IP editor above is correct insofar as African sources are not as widely available online as American or European material, I've made a fairly exhaustive effort to confirm the content of this article.  Although key terms (like "Dunn Mabika Hove") are completely unproductive as search terms, I attempted to search based on only parts of the purported subject's name as well as features of his claimed career, under the assumption that there may have been variations of the spelling or form of the name.  The closest that I was able to discover was the existence of one Richard Chemist Hove, who does not have a Wikipedia article at this time, but might perhaps be notable.  However, Richard Hove is not the person described in this article; he was born in 1939 (not 1959) and died in 2009 (not 2007) -- although the circumstances of his death (diabetic coma) and his burial in the Heroes' Acre are fundamentally similar to those described in the article.  Richard Hove was also not a colonel (he is titled Cde, which is "comrade"), and was not apolitical; on the contrary, he was a member of the ZANU-PF and is a "designated person" on several countries' lists of economic sanctions against Zimbabwe (Canada, US).  Hove's burial attracted media attention in and out of Zimbabwe when Mugabe was out of the country receiving medical treatment, leaving Acting President Mujuru to speak at the occasion.  A separate person, David Hove, was also recognized as a Zimbabwean war hero (here, paywalled) but died in 2004 and has even less in common with the purported details of Dunn Mabika.  While African topics present research challenges, the claims made in this article are sufficiently distinctive that, if Dunn Mabika Hove were real, information would be obtainable.  It does not seem to be.  This is a probable hoax. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) Delete. I've checked the sources cited in the article as suggested by the unregistered editor above:
 * http://www.uz.ac.zw/units/cds/staff.html is currently inaccessible to me.
 * http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/news/zimbabwe/50267/hove-to-be-buried-on.html is about someone else named Hove.
 * http://www.mod.gov.zw/ is the home page of the Zimbabwe Ministry of Defence. Searching the site for "Hove" or "Checherere" finds nothing
 * http://www.rhodesianforces.org/OperationUric-GAZAMazambique.htm has no mention of the subject.
 * Guerrilla Veterans in Post-war Zimbabwe: Symbolic and Violent Politics, 1980-1987 is available for preview via Google Books. Searches for "Hove" and "Checherere" find nothing.
 * I have been unable to track down "The Commonwealth Intervention in Zimbabwe 1980". Was this published in a journal or book?
 * Ditto for "Ulogy of the late Col. Mabika Hove".
 * Another Wikipedia article wouldn't be a reliable source, even if it mentioned the subject.
 * "Mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a nationwide survey" is an article in The Lancet, which I have access to via my library. It makes no mention of the subject.
 * "Congo war-driven crisis kills 45,000 a month: study" doesn't mention the subject.
 * The article may not be a complete hoax, but the inclusion of such fraudulent references is enough for us to abandon the assumption of good faith and assume that it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per the above posts by Squeamish Ossifrage and Phil Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2011 (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.