Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hei! Voetsek!


 * 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   merge to Zebulon Dread. I'm redirecting it for now, but all the stuff will still be in the history. Wizardman 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hei! Voetsek!

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't seem notable. 206 G-hits. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question if it is just a reprint of source material doesn't it belong at "wikisource" or something? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even a claim to notability. --triwbe (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this would meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikisource.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, not sourced. And ditto Espirit15d's reply to Jasynnash. IceUnshattered (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering my question "guys" to be honest I only even heard of wikisource very recently and know nothing about the criteria and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC) sorry ignore that. The current article isn't the same copyvio thing from before. My apologies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, not sourced, not well written. JdeJ (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Zebulon Dread. This magazine was produced by what is evidently a notable South African street poet, Zebulon Dread, whose stub of an article could use more information. The article was sourced, but the contributor evidently didn't know how to follow through with external links. I've done a bit of cleaning (including noting the original source for GFDL concerns and removing deadlinks). If the article winds up being merged, I'll be happy to clean it further to fit better in the context of the biography, but I think there's usable information here that should not be deleted. I also think, since the poet seems notable, that the resultant redirect is useful in its own right, as it will point individuals searching on the publication to the poet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete It's all too easy for people in Europe or America to decide what's notable for us in Africa. Googling an African street magazine and deciding on our behalf that because there weren't enough pages returned, it's not notable, is hardly representative, and perpetuates the immense bias against African content in the English Wikipedia. I live in Cape Town. The magazine was an institution - of course it's notable. I would be happy if the decision was made to merge into Zebulon Dread if necessary. Arguing it should be deleted because it's not well-written is entirely counter to the wiki way. If something is broken, fix it, don't throw it down the toilet. Greenman (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.   — Greenman (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Merge to Zebulon Dread per above. I think the merger would fix the notability and copyvio issues in one go. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (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.