Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nongoloza cult


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nongoloza cult

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a hoax. The only references to a "Nongoloza cult" on google are a series of blogs and now deleted wikinews.org articles authored by the same person making this article (see Sockpuppet investigations/Michel Sher) Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as Hoax Legacypac (talk)
 * What is hoax? News of Cape Town or Books. It's Vandalism on your part Jeremi AI (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith from other editors. Skepticism is not vandalism. The book citations in the article are too vague to verify. Independent searches for references about this cult bring up low quality hits. Readers need to be able to verify the article content and trust that it is free of original research. That is a problem with the current article. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw you have already made an observation to the Justeditingtoday. Note that the same situation is repeated here. Jeremi AI (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing about the original warning applies here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am emphasize on the act of Vandalism on the part of Justeditingtoday. And therefore I ask you, as an administrator, not to give the opportunity to violate the rules of Wikipedia. Jeremi AI (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism to nominate something for deletion, and you should stop making such accusations as per WP:NPA. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In my statements, I am guided solely by the Wikipedia rules. Justeditingtoday did not give evidence of his point of view.(See the types of vandalism #Abuse of tags)Jeremi AI (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This does not appear to be Wikipedia hoax article by strict definition, but the cult appears to be a blogosphere hoax that real people have acted upon. That said, I do not yet see evidence this is a notable hoax like Pizzagate. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The only reliable source I can find discussing this (alleged) religious group is the news article cited by Gene93k. Whether it is real or a hoax, either way it has received insufficient coverage in reliable sources for notability. SJK (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I still have not received an answer, where is a lie? The news, about what is happening in Cape Town? But aside from the news, I cited four more books that were used on the creation of the article. - Jeremi AI (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, we have a WP:Verifiability problem. The online references are about gang-related knife fighting.  They do not even mention this secret society.  The four books listed under "Information sources" are not specific enough to verify.  The content about the society itself appears to be based on one book.  A Google Books search for "Nongoloza cult" yields multiple hits, so this is probably not a hoax, but we need specific references (esp. page numbers) in the books, so that people with library access can find the books and verify that the citations are not misinterpreted.  Even with that issue solved we still have the issues about substantial coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I added books with page numbers Jeremi AI (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you add relevant quotes from those pages of the book? Just a couple of sentences or a paragraph or so, will do. We specifically want to see where they use the phrase "Nongoloza cult". SJK (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with, there is not enough coverage by reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you constructive criticism. I respect your position. I made some improvements to the article and added sources. If there are any specific comments, I will take note of them. - Jeremi AI (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I added sources. I supplemented the article with an information. I took into account the wishes of the community, according to the rules. I would be grateful if you would help me to make an article and remove the mark for deletion. - Jeremi AI (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources you've added don't actually support the key contention of the article, which is there is a group called the "Nongoloza cult". For example, sickchirpse.com article never mentions "Nongoloza cult", it does talk about The Numbers Gang but there is already an article on that. Also, I am not sure if "Sick Chirpse" is actually a reliable source or not. You also cite a paper from the Southern African Journal of Criminology–while that is undoubtably a reliable source, I don't see any mention of a "Nongoloza cult" in that paper. So I don't think this gives any reason for myself (or anyone else) to change their recommendation for deleting this article. The problem the article has is there is a lack of references specifically talking about "Nongoloza cult". Adding references which talk about South African criminal gangs or religious movements, etc, doesn't help solve that problem unless those references specifically mention a Nongoloza cult. None of the references do, except for the IOL article on the bomb threat, but that by itself is not enough for an article on this group–it mentions such a group was claimed to exist by the person making the bomb threat, but gives no further information on the group, it doesn't even confirm that the group definitely exists (as opposed to being a myth or hoax or legend.) SJK (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Heather Parker Lewis points out in her book, that the church often became an asylum for members of the Nongoloza cult from the persecution of the authorities" - this book speaks directly about the Nongoloza cult – Jeremi AI (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I added quotes with links to the source. I see no reason to consider the article a lie. - Jeremi AI (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you have added a quote from Heather Parker Lewis' book "God's children". And yes, that quote uses the phrase "Nongoloza cult", which is good. You haven't supplied the page number for the quote, but hopefully you can fix this. And I'm going to trust your quote is accurate. The bigger problem is, I believe that her book is a self-published book (see WP:SELFPUBLISH), and hence not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. Note the publisher is "ihilihili Press". ihilihili Press doesn't appear to have a website, but it does have a Facebook page, which talks openly about the fact that it is a self-publishing operation. I can't find any books published by "ihilihili Press" except those written by Heather Parker Lewis. She also wrote a book they published called "Successful Self Publishing In South Africa". It is pretty clear that "ihilihili Press" is simply Heather Parker Lewis' label for her self-publishing operation, which means her book is self-published and hence can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. Can you provide quotes from non-self-published books which use the phrase "Nongoloza cult"? SJK (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even if it is not a hoax there is no in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:GROUP. just mentions don't help to meet the requirements for notability. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete not sufficient coverage in RS. Dloh cierekim  01:12, 1 May 2017 (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.