Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malawi web awards (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This article resembles more of listcruft than anything, and no notability has been established. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Malawi web awards


This page was previously nominated for deletion based on "Substantial rewrite needed, appears to be used for promotion of an insignificant organization. Unreliable resources used, hence no WP:N can clearly be established. Spam links related to this organization have been reverted on other Malawi articles." This was applied on 2008-12-21 and the five-day grace period expired. The issues with WP:N and WP:Sources do not appear to have been resolved. The deletion proposal appears to have been merely removed. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * G11 Seems pretty blatant to me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (CSD 11) was also previously applied to the same article, and was denied in favor of wp:prod. So this is this article's third run-through for deletion. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - notability is easy enough to establish - maybe. Badly needs a strong editing hand, but that's an editorial issue. Claims of spammy-ness are patently rediculous - it's pretty clearly a "poor command of English" issue. Wily D  21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - the notability mentioned by WilyD above is an "interactive news maker" self reporting their own winning of the web award - it is not even close to a reliable independent source.  The "awards" are hosted at blogspot.com.  This doesn't come anywhere near satisfying notability or RS requirements.  It's basically spam. Phil153 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A straightforward reflection of systematic bias. Webhosting as an American is somewhat different from webhosting as a Malawian. Wily D  11:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a reflection of the scope, anonymity and difficulty of creating the organization. Anyone can sign up for a blogspot account.  How do we know that someone from the nyasatimes didn't give themselves the award?  They're 2 of the 3 sources you've quoted that mention the awards, and one of their articles is merely gushing about their own winning of one of the first awards.  Finding reliable sources supporting the organization would go a lot further to changing my vote than claiming "systemic bias".  After all, they're supposed to be a notable web based organization; surely more sources can be easily found online?  Phil153 (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While this event may be notable within Malawi, I agree with Phil153 that there are no quality sources to support notability. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 14 January 2009 (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.