Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pambazuka News

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.

[edit] Pambazuka News

The result was no consensus. CitiCat 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pambazuka News (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - No assertion of notability, seemingly fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources for verification, also suspect a conflict of interest with the article creator. Prod removed without comment by aforementioned COI account. DarkSaber2k 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep — Googling suggests that it might just about be notable, but the lack of sources and conflict of interest mean that I wouldn't greatly oppose its deletion. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'd say there are assertations of notability in the article, but they aren't backed up by reliable sources, and the WP:COI aspect is worrying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V -- Y not? 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - seems notable, at least if the part about having half a million readers is true, and gets plenty of hits on Google. Needs a far better article to prove it, though. Terraxos 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Is there a source for the readership being half a million? I didn't see it with a brief scan of their website, although the scan was just that - brief. Picaroon (Talk) 03:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I find several instances of independent coverage which make its notability clear: [1], [2] (subscription), and [3]. Also, it has won multiple other awards. Picaroon (Talk) 19:21, 10 July 2007 (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.