Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Zimbabwe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Zimbabwe. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Zimbabwe|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Zimbabwe. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Africa.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
WikiProject Zimbabwe
General information (edit · changes)
Shortcuts
Departments
Related Pages
Things you can do (edit)
Tasks clipboard
Tasks clipboard
Zimbabwe-related tasks
view • edit • discuss • history • watch
Article Statistics
Zimbabwe articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 2 5 4 1 13
FL 1 1 2
A 1 1
GA 3 9 8 17 37
B 29 13 15 36 20 113
C 45 36 61 135 89 366
Start 98 140 214 623 338 1,413
Stub 33 185 317 1,069 543 2,147
List 17 14 12 53 2 52 150
Category 3,093 3,093
Disambig 9 9
File 82 82
Project 33 33
Redirect 10 13 42 48 209 322
Template 211 211
Other 1 14 15
Assessed 236 412 676 1,987 3,653 1,043 8,007
Unassessed 1 72 73
Total 236 412 676 1,988 3,653 1,115 8,080
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 21,825 Ω = 5.34


Zimbabwe

[edit]

David Gillow

[edit]
David Gillow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find SIGCOV through google searches under both name and "galloping" nickname. The newspapers on the back of his personal website, since I can't find the name of the newspaper, I can't WP:VERIFY them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Zimbabwe. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:NEXIST. The background of his website is literally clips of newspaper features on him. That you can't find them by searching Google proves that you cannot find all existing SIGCOV on the internet and there is often offline things to find. There is likely much more that exists, but knowing that there were at least four newspaper features on him per his pictures on his website is sufficient. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While the subject's personal website does include newspaper clippings, we have no indication beyond the headlines what the articles are about or how much coverage was provided, thus WP:NEXIST is not applicable. As such, the WP:GNG is not met here with any WP:SIGCOV here or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's literally in the titles of the articles and they are several columns long! That clearly indicates SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not necessarily. It could be that the articles only mention Gillow only for a couple of sentences before covering other topics. We can't say for sure one way or the other. Let'srun (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      When there is large pictures of him, he is in the title, and the first sentences are about him, assuming that it is not SIGCOV is completely ridiculous and implausible. We can use common sense. The chances that there is not SIGCOV of him is essentially nil. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. The sources may exist, but we have not verified them yet. Until we can verify, we can't do anything yet. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The article is completely verifiable. We do not need to verify the specific newspaper of the SIGCOV that we know with 99.99% certainty is SIGCOV to allow for the article to be kept; deleting an article when we have SIGCOV because "well, we don't have the specific newspaper that SIGCOV was published in at the moment" is utterly ludicrous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If we cannot access the source, read it, and if we cannot verify that it is real and exists, we DON'T have the SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is obvious that the sources are real and that they cover him in detail... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No it's not. They're from his own website. We need to verify where these actually came from. Until then, either draftify or delete. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Moreover, you're citing the subject himself. How do we know that the sources aren't just edited? Unless we can find the original paper in Zimbabwe, or plausibly Australia because the website looks like a com.au website, We need to be able to verify that the sources are actually real. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You seriously expect an Olympian to fabricate 1970s newspapers on himself to put on his website? That is completely implausible. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We can't cite primary sources on Wikipedia for the purposes of establish notability. We're not a research project the same way a high school, college or institution is. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You actually can cite primary sources, and the newspapers aren't those. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We can't cite newspapers if we don't know where they came from, who wrote them, etc. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Except we can. We don't need to know the author for a newspaper to be usable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't even know which newspaper Gillow even appeared in. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NOCOMMON. Let'srun (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And I find it quite frankly insulting for any editor to use it in AfD. Zimbabwe is not the United States, and it is not clear that the provided screenshots provide significant, independent coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The one with the photo has a sub-sub-headline that suggests that the article is more overall coverage of the event, which would be common for sports coverage. Here's an example, where the person in the title an in the accompanying photograph gets only four sentences, or about 1/4th of the article. Even if we accept that these are images of real newspapers, we do not know what papers they are, so we don't know if they are reliable sources, nor if they are multiple sources or but a single source. We cannot cite the newspapers because we don't know what they say beyond the headlines (at the resolution of the image, it would be at best a guess), and headlines are not reliable sources even in reliable source newspapers, so there is nothing to cite, and we wouldn't know what source to attribute even if we did. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point re: WP:HEADLINES being unreliable and not establishing WP:SIGCOV. Even if we could verify with certainty the authenticity of the headlines—which we cannot—that would be insufficient. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Headline content itself isn’t, is what policy says: but if we are asked to make a logical assumption on the article content based on the headline, the common sense assumption should be obvious. Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a big leap from these grainy, unauthenticated photos of 2–4 newspaper clippings to "SIGCOV definitely exists". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a logical assumption if the only image that exists of the newspaper clippings is on a non-independent source, and all potential sources that we can search at least at the moment turn up nothing. We can't verify that, at least not yet, and to keep this kind of material online can potentially risk us spreading hoaxes at the most extreme interpretation Especially if he is living, then BLP would apply too (which we still are unsure of). I feel compelled to remind you that verifiability is one of the three core content policies, alongside RS and NOR, and that verification from a personal site, let alone one that isn't even online anymore and only accessible from the internet archive, is like saying "I have a billion dollars, source is trust me bro plz". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What are you on about mate? The known existence of these sources is being used to demonstrate notability, that's all we have to determine, if sources exist - we're not putting statements we can't verify into the article and nobody has suggested that. Just because you can't search to save your life doesn't make everything others turn up 'trust me bro plz'. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NEXIST - we know sources exist, even if we can't access them. I'd agree with Beanie that to see an article with a headline mentioning the subject's name and first sentences discussing him, and assert that the article could just contain a passing mention is nothing more than wilful lack of common sense. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with Kingsif's reasoning for supporting BeanieFan11. Source verifiability does not mean that a source has to be able to be verified by a specific person or group of people, but that it is indeed possible for someone to verify the existence and quality of the source. For instance, if a database listed the last surviving copies of a referenced print resource to be in a local library in rural Kazakhstan, the source cannot be assumed to be unverifiable just because no one in an AfD discussion is willing to buy a flight to Kazakhstan to check. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasonings above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the idea of a potential source only being mentioned on a subject's personal or non-RS website and so far not being locatable otherwise...I get the gut feeling that this might be best suited for a VPP discussion. I might start that if I feel like it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've started it at WP:VPP. Feel free to comment InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEXIST points to Wikipedia:Published, which states (emphasis included in the original):

    All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people, according to definitions in the relevant policies and guidelines. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.

    A source that no one is able to locate, whose existence and content cannot be verified by any editor cannot be used. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accessible to at least some people? Well, that is the case here, given that someone put them online (to do so, it must have been accessible). The reason no editor has located them aside from the website listing them is because no editor has checked Zimbabwean newspaper archives, where the coverage is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Low res photos of newspaper clippings on a website that is non-independent or not otherwise considered a reliable source are insufficient. It is not accessible if no editor is able to locate to confirm their existence and contents. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The link you point to does not say we need an editor right now to verify all the citation details, only that it needs to be accessible to someone, which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone independent of the article subject and independent of the website, which is not a reliable source. Wikipedia:Published#Accessible goes on to say A source is considered accessible if it is available to the public to review in some manner and provides further discussion and definition. Perhaps one of the WikiProjects tagged on Talk:David Gillow or Wikipedia:Reference desk can help identify sources to establish SIGCOV and improve the article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried to check but failed to find any online archives which I have access to for Zimbabwean archives. Plus, if his personal website is hosted in Australia, why not search Australian archives like we did, and that also turned up no results? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      His career appears to have taken place in Zimbabwe, while it seems he later moved to Australia. The newspapers are likely Zimbabwean, and thus would be found in offline Zimbabwean archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless, the fact that a self-published, promotional source mentions or shows snippets of what might be such sources is not sufficient on its own to satisfy NEXIST. A low-quality image of an unidentifiable newspaper clipping on a personal website falls short of your WP:ONUS. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage clearly exists. This seems to be a classic case of systematic bias because the coverage seems to have occurred in print media in a country that does not have a well developed online media archive. Number 57 20:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RGW InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out systematic bias that comes from a disregard for print media is not WP:RGW. Ike Lek (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joina City

[edit]
Joina City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real sources, no non-routine coverage coming up on Google. Originally created by an account that is now blocked for undisclosed paid editing. -- LWG talk 18:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Zimbabwe&oldid=1300478992"