Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitegemee (2nd nomination)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jitegemee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been badly sourced for a while now and all the ones that are currently in it are primary references. I wasn't able to find anything about it that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG from a WP:BEFORE either. There was an AfD for it in 2015 that resulted in keep, but the only argument against deleting it seemed to resolve around systemic bias or something. Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found [1], [2], [3], [4]. If it survives AfD, I'll add them to the article.   // Timothy :: talk  04:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @TimothyBlue: Add them now. Quoting from the standard AFD notification, "Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion". Narky Blert (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much safer not to add them now. If you do and the article still gets deleted you'll have to find even more again to avoid WP:G4 if you decide to recreate the article. Reliable sources need to exist, not necessarily be cited in the article. Thincat (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont think much of Thincat's advice. Rathfelder (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there. Putting them in the article gives passerby's a much better idea of the sourcing as a whole. Plus, I highly doubt it would matter later on if the article is recreated. Good sources are good sources. Not that I'm saying they are because I haven't checked, but if they were it wouldn't matter to G4 because it covers content, not sourcing. Just don't phrase the article the same and there shouldn't be a problem, but that would be true if the new sources are added to it or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm going to add them to the article, sorry I've been slow in doing so.   // Timothy :: talk  19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow Up I put some work in ce the article and adding the references. There is still information and work that can improve the article, but it's a start. If for some reason this article does not make it through AfD (I think it should, but just in case), I request the closer Draftify the article so I can continue work on it. Thanks for your patience.   // Timothy :: talk  00:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article seems to meet WP:GNG.A popular youth project in the country that has been featured in multiple news papers and news site.Best Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY and Timothy's sources. I think The Bright Continent: Breaking Rules and Making Change in Modern Africa looks especially strong. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2020 (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.