Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mfumu’eto


 * 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mfumu’eto

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

Unnotable magazine (I think). Article more about the creator than anything about the publication. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   —triwbe (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs more citations, but reads more like a good capture of an ephemeral publication and/or person. Doesn't seem to be self-marketing. Some searching indicates that the publication and the creator may have the same name. MIT's African Arts journal covers him as part of an overview of African comic book artists. Massimo Repetti. African Wave: Specificity and Cosmopolitanism in African Comics. African Arts Summer 2007, Vol. 40, No. 2, Pages 16-35. Posted Online May 30, 2007. (doi:10.1162/afar.2007.40.2.16) Recommend keeping for improvement. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would need a citation to need more. :P Right now, its mostly a copy/paste of http://www.chimurengalibrary.co.za/periodicals.php?id=13 with parts of the bio stuff removed. It needs, however, to be about one or the other. It was created about the magazine, which doesn't appear notable. The man, Mfumu'eto may be notable, but the article isn't really about him, though his bio comprises more of the article the actual magazine info. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The article says the creator of the comics ran off a few copies which criticized the local powers and distributed them in the marketplace. The same could be said of any school or business where wits and critics used comics or cartoons to criticize the administration. There is no inherent notability for comic books. Fails WP:N due to lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. My present computer is not up to the task of opening the citation listed above, so someone has to answer the question of whether it has more than passing reference to this comic. Edison2 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep !! Agree the article needs improvement, but it'll never be improved if it's deleted :) Greenman (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not a valid keep argument, since it would also be true for the worst and least notable article ever written. Edison2 (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Chimurenga Library is not just a list of random articles. They archive historical African magazines, amongst other things. From their mission statement: Chimurenga Library is an online archiving project that profiles independent pan African paper periodicals from around the world. It focuses on cultural and literary magazines, both living and extinct, which have been influential platforms for dissent and which have broadened the scope for print publishing on art, new writing and ideas in and about Africa. They list 27 periodicals, hardly comprehensive, so a comment such as "Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles" isn't helpful, or a reason to delete. They are being funded by contributers to the WikiAfrica project in an attempt to improve the dire state of African literary content on Wikipedia. Finding no references in Google from an armchair is not a good way to assert notability - references will be print-based, and much harder to come by. I ask those making flip judgements of notability to bear this in mind, and to give the process time to unfold, rather than drain energy in deletion requests. Consider Notability/Arguments. The user making the contributions is not an experienced Wikipedian, so does not always know the right way to deal with things, and is not actively participating in the deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Lack of sophistication on the part of an article's creator is not a countervailing argument against failure to satisfy notability requirements, and a Wiki-effort is not a reliable source, however lofty its aims. Edison2 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and make it about the artist. Google scholar and one or two things on Google Books don't show much notability (included in a major exhibition, but not as the main focus, etc.), but quite enough to convince me. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up with proper evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 2 September 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.