Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zambuko House


 * 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. ansh 666 07:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Zambuko House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 16:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:NORG. The sources below below the level of depth required for WP:GNG, but are clearly non-trivial coverage of this organization in independent and reliable sources.
 * — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, In one sentence you have stated that the sources are not good enough, but still good enough?? The Banner talk 19:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the definition of significant coverage in WP:NCORP is different from the definition in WP:GNG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - true, but NORG (as the same as NCORP) is viewed as stricter than GNG, and I'm not sure how Sig Cov is any less in NORG, if anything I'd say its more. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, In one sentence you have stated that the sources are not good enough, but still good enough?? The Banner talk 19:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the definition of significant coverage in WP:NCORP is different from the definition in WP:GNG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - true, but NORG (as the same as NCORP) is viewed as stricter than GNG, and I'm not sure how Sig Cov is any less in NORG, if anything I'd say its more. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * With some regret, Delete -- This is no doubt a worthy cause, but I cannot believe that a single children's home for 22 boys is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as it may be small-scale but the references given above do seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources and are only partly interview, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above, a decent institution, doing great work, but it is one of many, and nothing here to say it's notable enough for an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the organization itself is righteous and a good thing; the article that describes it is under-referenced and non-notable.96.127.242.226 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many people believe that inclusion of an article in Wikipedia about some person or a charity, would mean greater financial income for that subject. Well, it just doesn't work like this in real life. It's all mostly vanity. Despite what many specialists will impress on you, being in Wikipedia will not get you an appearance in your favorite club's first team next week, nor will it rain moolah into your charity's coffers. So, with admiration duly registered but without remorse, Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient sources of quality, probably to meet WP:GNG but certainly to meet WP:NORG. Having seen a few of Gnome's AfD !votes in recent days they do seem to have become more...interesting :S Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2018 (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.