Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lusaka Voice

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. ✗plicit 01:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lusaka Voice

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Zambian news agency appears to fail WP:NCORP. Notability-tagged since 2013. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in the article and in searches show a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources that are significant are not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 15 February 2022 (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.