Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/South Africa

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mvqr (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 24 December 2023 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stainoff.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to South Africa. 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|South Africa|~~~~}} 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 South Africa. 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


South Africa

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 speedy delete‎. Self-advertisement - NN performer Alexf(talk) 19:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stainoff

Stainoff (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)

Has a claim of significance with "Stainoff's First studio album Rocketbee (2023), debuted number one in South Africa", however this is false as far as I can tell. Does not have SIGCOV. Mvqr (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per @Doomsdayer520’s comment. (My bold isn’t working, I’m editing from mobile currently. It prints as ‘’’.)

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. I see a consensus to Keep this article but improvements, as suggested in this discussion, still need to be made. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Stretton

Pamela Stretton (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)

Fails WP:ARTIST. Most sources are from http://www.rosekorberart.com/ which appears to be a primary source. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I recovered the dead links to the citations and added more details. Although it looked like all the sources were from a gallery website, they were actually reviews of her work from other publications; the content of the reviews was reposted on the gallery website. Thus, there are ample examples of significant coverage. Included is a review in The Sunday Independent, the magazines Contempo and Art South Africa, and a review in Monday Paper. I also added missing citations and looked into the awards listed in the Infobox. She was a finalist for the Absa L'Atelier Art Competition three times and was selected for the Spier Contemporary Competition and Exhibition which appears to be a big deal in the South African art scene. Rublamb (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the work put in by Rublamb. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per comments by Rublamb to meet WP:NARTIST. WP:DINC, even if most sources at the time the article was nominated were primary. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article relies mainly on primary sources for biographical and exhibition/collection information. I am not finding reliable sourcing for the information presented. The entire content about Stretton at the VISI citation is The series by Pamela Stretton, who was born in South Africa and now lives in the U.K., focuses on the female body, and is to a large extent autobiographical. This press release was cited multiple times. Fails WP:ARTIST. Not part of any significant exhibitions or collections, and does not have significant RS coverage. WP:TOOSOON --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Looks like you missed part of the VISI article. The full content to consider is: "Featuring three extraordinary artists – Lyndi Sales, Pamela Stretton and Eris Silke – the exhibition showcases a collection of artworks from colourful abstract creations to images built up from pixilated digital ink-jet prints and sensitive paintings of dreams and fantasy. ...The series by Pamela Stretton, who was born in South Africa and now lives in the U.K., focuses on the female body, and is to a large extent autobiographical. Issues such as beauty ideals and the body’s relationship with popular culture, fashion, health and food come to the fore in her works, which take the form of pixilated digital inkjet prints. Each 20 x 20mm pixel contains iconography drawn from the food, fashion, consumerism and health and fitness industries, such that the viewer is forced to stand at a distance in order to make the image visually resolve." This could be used to replace primary sources in the article. Also, it is allowable to use primary sources—they just don't apply toward notability. The key here is that there are potential secondary sources that can be used to expand the article. The review in The Sunday Independent proves notablity and is not yet used. Rublamb (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To reinforce the point about primary sources, note WP:PRIMARY#3 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It looks like Rublamb missed the point that the VISI article is a press release put out by the gallery. No byline, and the bottom states Catch this showcase of the power of women in art at Cape Town’s Barnard Gallery until 13 April. For more info on the exhibition or artists, visit www.barnardgallery.com.. I understand primary sources can be used for some facts, but I do not think they can be used to establish notability. Nor can native advertising. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. I hadn't noticed that was a press release (normally I'd expect to see press releases published in multiple locations), so I'm changing my !vote to a weaker keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As someone who used to write press releases and do PR for a living, reporters often end an article that way,, especially when writing about exhibitions and shows. I never assume something is a press release unless I see the same content in several places. But let's assume @WomenArtistUpdates is correct and remove VISI from the list of articles toward notability. These sources remain: The Sunday Independent, the magazines Contempo and Art South Africa, and a review in Monday Paper. Rublamb (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the remaining "sources", there is the Monday Paper - the newspaper for University of Cape Town , and Art South Africa, which I can find no reference of existence. Are you familiar with that publication or has her gallery presented a typo in the title? Again, not much help in establishing notability. Contempo Magazine is a pretty weak source as well. Whoops wrong magazine. No Idea about the South African publication. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what Art South Africa look like. A typical art journal that is significant/notable enough to be sold through the used book market. I have also added a link to a PDF of the Spier catalog.Rublamb (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A search found reliable sources that show notability, including the subject's participation in the 10-year Spier national art project, which Smithsonian Libraries noted was juried. I have added that to the subject's article. This clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:NARTIST. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying for one more relist before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rose Korber Art". web.archive.org. 8 March 2011. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
  2. ^ "The Spier Art Collection". Spier Wine Farm. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
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.
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. ✗plicit 23:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People Like Us (band)

People Like Us (band) (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)

Non-notable band that had some small-scale success with one song: "Deliverance". Billboard magazine includes the song in an advertisement in November 1986,[1] but the song is never mentioned again in Billboard. It did not chart in the US or UK. There is no in-depth biography of the band. The song "Deliverance" appears on some compilation albums, for instance Passion Records 12" Collection in 1995 and Gay Classics, Vol. 11: Hangin' Out in 1996. I could not find anyone writing about the song or the group to give details or context. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - haven't been able to find any RS evidence of notability.
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa Partners

South Africa Partners (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)

All sources are non-independent except #3, which describes the director of the org and #6, which describes a co-founder. (Note #15 features one of the directors of the org as a guest). Search reveals no more sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 redirect‎ to United Democratic Movement. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yongama Zigebe

Yongama Zigebe (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)

Fails NPOL and NBIO. Currently, the only source cited contains one sentence about the article subject: "Yongama Zigebe filled the secretary general position left vacant by Msomi." I could not find any other sources that provide significant coverage of the article subject. The article subject does not meet any of the secondary criteria in NPOL because he is not an elected government official. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CIVETS

CIVETS (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)

The article is one of many articles for acronym-groupings of countries that happened in the 2010–2012 period as a result of the popularity of the BRIC term. However, the term CIVETS has not had sustained reliable coverage. In other words, it was a concept that was floated, received some minor coverage at one point in time, and has not had any coverage since. It is not notable. Thenightaway (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not getting tons of media coverage these days, but hasn't gone away:
"Abstract: The purpose of the study is to examine the effects of the corporate tax rate on sustainable development in the BRIC and CIVETS countries. ..."
Jahaza (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are not esteemed academic publications. Thenightaway (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the term was notable at one time, the article should be retained per WP:NTEMP Park3r (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was never notable. Thenightaway (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is false. There is ZERO academic discussion of CIVETS in the article. On the point of academic scholarship, I'd go so far as to say that if you ask 100 development economists if they could describe the concept, not a single one would be able to. Thenightaway (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, we don't have 100 to ask, and that is not a usual requirement for notability. The concept was originated by the EUI, which is extremely difficult to cast as some negligible source. I also don't see how the journals cited above are suddenly non-academic, nor how the sources that are already cited are somehow invalid. This is feeling more and more like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. My SNOW Keep !vote stands. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept was not coined by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It was coined by then-director of the Economist Intelligence Unit, Robert Ward. Neither Ward nor the Economist Intelligence Unit are academics. Ward is a consultant and The Economist Intelligence Unit is a company that provides consulting services. Part of that includes bandying about catchy academic-sounding labels that have no meaning, coherence and buy-in, but which convey scientism and rigor to the uninformed. Why is Wikipedia helping consultants advertise their services? Thenightaway (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "academic sources" cited in this AfD discussion are absolute bottom of the barrel. These are completely unknown journals that churn out rubbish. The fact the term is used in these fringe sources should be taken as a marker of non-notability, if anything. The first source is literally a predatory publisher (MDPI): https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10040077. I can't even bother to check the other ones, as these are just random sources that the other user found. Thenightaway (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss more the source's
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is such divided opinion on this article that it is not a Snow Keep. I would welcome some more editors who are AFD regulars to assess this article and newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I disagree that WP:SNOW applies as it is not a frequently used current term (meaning it may be harder to verify) and some of the in-article sources are of questionable reliability. I would not outright dismiss the MDPI source Thenightaway mentioned as MDPI can publish good quality material, it should just be one of many factors in determining source reliability. I don't have enough knowledge on this topic to comment either way regarding the nomination, but I would suggest other editors to consider the relevance of WP:NEO for the nomination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Applied Economics and Physica A are most definitely *not* predatory journals; there is no basis for the claim that "These are completely unknown journals that churn out rubbish." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is clearly sections of the article that are WP:SYNTH (in particular the individual country sections), however, there's a difference between an article containing SYNTH material which can be removed as against a topic which is SYNTHESIS. Furthermore, WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. Finally, the origin of a topic is immaterial to a consideration of notability - it might affect where we write about the topic (simplistically, does Windows get covered by itself or as part of Microsoft?), but we need only consider whether or not there is SIGCOV in reliable sources to determine notability. No evidence has been provided that *all* the sources listed above are predatory publications. I find the following three reliable sources spanning a seven year period more than adequate to satisfy the GNG.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Petrović-Ranđelović, Marija; Mitić, Petar; Zdravković, Aleksandar; Cvetanović, Dušan; Cvetanović, Slobodan (2 April 2020). "Economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from CIVETS countries". Applied Economics. 52 (16): 1806–1815. doi:10.1080/00036846.2019.1679343. CIVETS are a group of such countries with fast growing economies. Economists often call this group 'tiger economies'. There is no geographical explanation for the formation of this group, which additionally includes structurally diverse economies. However, despite geographical dispersion and obvious variations, these countries have large and predominantly young population, a high level of domestic consumption and economies that are greatly based on products, while their financial systems are highly developed and modern. CIVETS countries generally do not record high inflation rates. Further, fiscal deficits have increased as a result of global economic crisis, but public debt in the CIVETS counties is still fairly low, and all the countries in this group appeared to be relatively immune to recent global recession, which is, generally speaking, only the proof of quality and properly created policy in the previous period. Even political risks in these countries are not high any more, therefore, although a certain risk is still present, all these countries have good prospects to remain stable. However, it is important to mention that CIVETS countries have not shown any interest in coordination of their foreign policies related to investment issues
  2. ^ Guerra-Barón, Angélica; Mendez, Alvaro (2015). "A comparative study of foreign economic policies: the CIVETS countries (Working Paper No. 3/2015)". Global South Unit, London School of Economics. Despite the fact that most CIVETS countries acceded to the WTO in 1994 (effective as of 1995) with a strategic view to adjusting to neoliberal ideas and so to participate in the global trade and investment environment, the decision to embrace the neoliberal logic was proximately responding to the pressure to overcome the financial crisis of the 1980s by accepting and implementing IMF recommendations. Furthermore, during the 1990s and the early 21st century, most CIVETS' policy-makers were either trained in the US or adopted the ideas of the Washington Consensus through their foreign affairs advisory bodies. In that context, it is clear that the phenomenon of policy convergence is easier to understand when the ideas and background of the main leaders are included as one of the variables of analysis.
  3. ^ Yi, Yong; Qi, Wei; Wu, Dandan (February 2013). "Are CIVETS the next BRICs? A comparative analysis from scientometrics perspective". Scientometrics. 94 (2): 615–628. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0791-9. CIVETS as a group playing a more and more important role in the world economy, is even considered as "the next BRICs". However, no comparative analysis of knowledge-based economy performance and scientific research performance between the two country groups has been conducted from the perspective of scientometrics.

This article could simply follow the format of the PIGS (economics) article; yes, the article needs cleanup, but that's not the point of AfD. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

South Africa Proposed deletions

Also check the list at WP:PRODSUM

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/South_Africa&oldid=1191605993"