Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Fruits (Southern 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 keep. Keeping. Feel free to discuss merge options on the talk page of the article. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

First Fruits (Southern Africa)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet source requirements with only one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splinemath (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this one as we wait on more sources to materialize.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SOURCESEXIST for why this is not a good idea. We'd be better off getting those sources rather than simply waiting. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete. Only one source.  I suppose it's a bit difficult to chronicle these traditions all considered, but if we don't have sources we had best not keep this. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nguni people per WP:PAGEDECIDE. First, let's remember that "the absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Second, here are some academic sources:   . It's a notable subject. That said, even though the specific practice is notable on its own,  WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests that if our readers will benefit from seeing the information in the broader context of a larger article, then we should put the information in the larger article rather than having a separate standalone article. In this case, readers would benefit from seeing why this particular practice is significant within the broader context of Nguni people. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Nguni people; the text is fine, but there's not enough here for a stand-alone article. Preserve the text, but there doesn't need to be a stand-alone article with only this much detail.  -- Jayron 32 16:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Indignant Flamingo except for merging. The article passes our notability test and has multiple independent reliable sources substantiating that notability. That is the test, and as such, the article deserves a stand alone just like any other article. Can it be improved? Absolutely! Can more RS be added? Absolutely! However, content issues are not ground for deletion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * A merge vote is a keep, not a delete, as the content is kept and the title is redirected to the new article. Nothing prevents improvement and expansion of the "First Fruits" section within the Nguni people article after merging, and if the material grew to require its own article based on size or disproportionate treatment, it could be spun back out. There's no good reason to force our readers to go between multiple articles to figure out context and significance, when one well-crafted article would do. As WP:PAGEDECIDE makes clear, having or not having a standalone article is a matter of serving the readers, not of the importance or notability of the subject. Most of us agree that the content is important. A standalone article is not a trophy that a subject "deserves", but one possible way to present information to readers, and in this case, not the best way. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we close this discussion? The results are very obviously keep and merge.-Splinemath (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2020 (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.