Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zimbabwe Metro


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Zimbabwe Metro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Defunct media outlet, original author has had similar pages removed in the past through speedy deletion. No secondary sources seem to be available online Whilst there are online sources available, these seem to be only passing mentions and do not on their own prove notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Going defunct is not a reason delete, censor or change history. The article itself has external links to the bbc/reuters which seem online to me in the UK for starters.  Secondary about published story at Global Media Journal African Edition 2013 Vol 7(2): P.184 for example.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Djm-leighpark. I never suggested that a defunct media outlet on its own would not be notable - however, there are clear questions about notability here with the sourcing as its presented. Looking at the BBC and Reuters sources you mention, they are only the briefest of passing mentions which IMHO would not indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Your nomination commented on their seeming to be no online secondary sources and it is disproved. Your allegation the article creator, who I make to be  and who does not seem to be been informed of this AfD  and who you have alleged in your nomination has had similar pages speedily deleted in the past .... Well I see User talk:Africa Festival they have had several images speedied (not similar) and also a speedy for Africa Center for Holistic Management which could only be called similar at a push.  So the whole nomination seems flawed.  WP:BEFORE seems inadequate.  Given apparent problems for the peoples of what was the bread basket of Africa a negative attack on its media seems quite distasteful.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * @ whoa, let’s slow down here. You seem to be accusing me on a malicious attack on a whole country’s media which could not be further from the truth. I’m simply trying to clear a backlog here of pages which were already tagged to be factually inaccurate, and in doing my research, I personally could not find any evidence for notability. Let’s take a step back and look at the evidence:


 * 1. My original nomination was badly worded and I have now corrected it. I invite you to look again at the sources and let me know if you think they provide notability.


 * 2. I did not notify because they have not made a single edit since 2009, so appear to be not using Wikipedia any more.


 * 3. RE: Speedy Deletes, this is a genuine mistake on my part. I was referring to another page where several former Zimbabwe media pages were nominated in a short space of time because they were promotional pieces. I have corrected this above.


 * 4. Yes there are online sources, but they still stink. They are the briefest of passing mentions and as such do not prove notability IMHO. I am a new editor and happy to be corrected through consensus.


 * Please to not scummer those sources ... the writers were in good faith and they are suited for WP:V. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 5. Please assume that all of this is done in good faith, as you appear to be accusing me of a malicious attack. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a mess, though you should probably look at feet before you put your shoes on methinks and then your might be righteous but seems you didn't. 11:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. we tend to be very flexible about media organizations.  DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 15 November 2019 (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.