Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Africa Press (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. Mackensen (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Think Africa Press
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was previously deleted on April 2012 for lack of notability, and no new significant secondary sources on it seem to have appeared. As with last time, the article relies almost entirely on reprints of the organization's initial press release (hosted at allafrica.com and modernghana.com), and Think Africa Press's own website. The new sources I see are a mention in a long list at world-newspapers.com (seems doubtful as a reliable source), and a link in The Guardian 's 25 Global development blogosphere blogs. The last is a little more persuasive, but it's still just two sentences of coverage in a single source--doesn't seem like enough to meet the WP:GNG. Khazar2 (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 24.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  18:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've tidied the refs to distinguish primary from secondary and remove repetitions. It is also worth noting that a Guardian search turns up quite a range of quotations from Think Africa in articles. AllyD (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, all of the 9 mentions appear to come after The Guardian invited them to be one of a few dozen blogs in their "global development blogosphere". I suppose providing content to the Guardian is a step toward notability, but is it possible to find any mentions in reliable sources that aren't directly affiliated? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I created the article with independent sources, but it was set for speedy deletion without a comment or review of the sources, I contested it and was removed. Im not sure why it is not meeting notability guidelines in terms of new type of news org and reception.--MsTingaK (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC) moved by User:Khazar2 from page of previous deletion nom
 * Not a big deal, but just to keep the record clear, this article was never nominated for speedy deletion (an AfD nomination is different), and my comments above have been here as long as the nomination has. For more information about how the deletion process works, you can see the links to Wikipedia's deletion policies in the template on the top of the article. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  02:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  02:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * - This discussion has been going on for a long time and not many opinions have been shared but I feel since this is already the second nomination that it should be open for longer to try and get some discussion. If anyone disagrees with this relist, feel free to close the discussion as "No consensus" per "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." <span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  02:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for relisting again. If this does end up closed by default (as seems likely), is there another forum I should take this to? It seems a shame to have no opinions here besides myself and the article's creator. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Clearly nobody other then the creator is prepared to defend this page, the entire continent of Africa ignored it, it has been relisted several times, and got ignored by the world. It should go. Leng T&#39;che (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's always difficult to establish the notability of a news resource, as they aren't often discussed in depth by other news resources. I tend to agree with the essay WP:Notability (media) that being frequently cited by other reliable sources helps to establish notability, and Think Africa Press are fairly frequently cited. Granted, mostly by the Guardian, but I think their involvement in the "global development blogosphere" means that they are "considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area", another of the notability criteria suggested in that essay. A marginal case, perhaps, but I think they just about scrape through. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete To me this is probably promotional. The question hinges on whether or not the slim coverage by The Guardian is sufficient to establish notability. I would say not, since I couldn't find anything else. IOW, there are no multiple sources of independent coverage. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON perhaps, but right not I'm not seeing it. § FreeRangeFrog 01:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I added at least one independent academic source - http://blogs.arcadia.edu/arcadiaupdates/2012/11/arcadia-directors-work-published-by-think-africa-press/--98.233.56.126 - they are feeding content to AllAfrica.com and other major news sources. They seem to be doing well. (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing it, but how do you see this an "independent source"? It's from a promotional blog for a sub-college of Arcadia University, one of whose faculty members just published in TAP. As a side note, please be aware that cutting and pasting content from another source is a copyright violation; it's important to summarize material in your own words, or use quotation marks with attribution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Comment For the last few days the article's been active with new accounts that appear to have been created for the sole purpose of adding questionable references, such as passing mentions in other blogs and quotations from TAP's press release. I removed some of this, and I was reverted by another brand-new account without discussion. This AfD's now been running for more than six weeks without anyone providing even one reliable source that isn't a business partner of or contributor to TAP. (Remember, the Guardian is in business with the site.) I'm a bit frustrated that this process can't seem to resolve, and I think it's time to wash my hands of it and unwatch this discussion and the article. Thanks to everybody who commented. Best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone needs to put this one out of its misery. It's fairly obvious that there are a bunch of SPAs here trying to cram every possible URL that even mentions this organization into the references to make it appear as if it's notable. It wasn't the first time it was up for AFD, and it's not now. § FreeRangeFrog 20:30, 6 December 2012 (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.