This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toAfrica. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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:
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 theedit 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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding{{subst:delsort|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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod,CfD,TfD etc.) related to 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'sdeletion policy andWP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
This is similar toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/As-Sakn as the only place I can find any mention of this place is on the same map that explicitly says "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations."
I am nominating this on the basis that this failsWP:V as I have been unable to find any other mentions of this place.
I am separating this from the nomination forAs-Sakn as, while the coordinates listed in the article are incorrect, the described location is somewhere around here (27.318419, -11.696195) where the sand is disturbed in such a way that is consistent with the possibility there might have been a village here at one point, however given the much more dubious nature ofAs-Sakn to my mind this sufficiently calls into question the validity of the designations on the map and I think another source would be needed to confirm that this location is/was a village.Giuliotf (talk)10:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my justification, the coordinates in the article are incorrect, more specifically they point to a place in Northern/Central Morocco, while the rest of the article describes a place in Western Sahara north of Samara, I have provided my best guess for the correct coordinates.Giuliotf (talk)11:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely impossible to verify. The source is a United Nations map which doesn't really make a lot of sense. Possibly the name of a junction? The co-ordinate is hundreds of miles away from where this is supposed to be, so the weak keep doesn't work here.SportingFlyerT·C12:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a fair bit of looking the only place I have found this supposed settlement mentioned is on the map provided, where it is labelled as a town/village, and the map has an explicit disclaimer that "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations."
I tried looking at satellite imagery and the two places I think this could be are this service station/oil well (27.630795, -11.623766) or this location in the desert where something funky is happening in the historical images, though it could just be rocks becoming exposed/covered by the weather (27.622233, -11.676945).
Delete uness something can be found. You're right. The only thing that matches any diescription of a settlement there is a service-station/oil field... though oddly not the ones you listed - (27°37'20"N, 11°40'37"W) - although the first one you mentioned is also possible, and there are other buildings less than 250 metres to the south of that. Neither of them is really enough for an article though.Grutness...wha?11:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, so I was looking through random articles, and I noticed that this page, Fantiangou,doesn't seem be notable enough to be kept. But it's not just this article.
This page is part of a series of articles listed onCoalla Department#Towns and villages, and I feel like all of them need to be deleted (exceptGanta andTakou, which have proven their notability). Part of this reason is that all the articles have shallow content, and share three references ([1],[2],[3]) that only have information on the data regarding these villages' demographics, and nothing else outside that topic.
Additionally, on a side note, I want to addressNepre's actions, not because they were a major contributor to all of these articles, but that they did so by making very minor and lackluster edits (without marking such edits as "minor"), likely to accessextended-confirmed permissions. I'll remain neutral on it, but I'd also like your opinions on that matter. —Alex26337 (talk)00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following are all the articles (including this one) I feel need to be deleted, after being up for so long:
Comment: There are two additional comments I want to make: first off, some of the links on this list lead to disambiguation pages; I realized that too late. For the full list, seeCoalla Department#Towns and villages (excluding the articles exempt from this). Secondly, I want to clarify that, while I propose these articles to be deleted, I still want the list to remain on the Coalla Department's page, albeit without wikilinks. —Alex26337 (talk)01:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Of the 7 that I checked, they are all notable perWP:GEOLAND, which is the relevant notability standard here. Villages listed in a government census satisfy "populated, legally recognized places". I presume the rest are all created the same way (villages from a census).Katzrockso (talk)06:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh my, I did not realize this policy about places before; this is new to me. After reading it, I can get the sense that such locations can have documented recognizability. Although, I’m still unsure as to whether pages with such little information, despite their status, will expand to hold more details about themselves. I’m asking this because I took some time to search for sources myself on Fantiangou, and couldn’t find anything else, yet this article’s existence persists. I guess I’m just a bit confused on how I should think about this situation. —Alex26337 (talk)11:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theremay be an argument for deleting a couple of these, but this nomclearly has easily verified settlements of several thousand people in it which passWP:GEOLAND. All GEOLAND requires is verification that a settlement is populated and is legally recognised.SportingFlyerT·C12:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stumbled across theseBurkina Faso stubs a while ago, and while I have a lot of problems with articles like these, particularly the ones missing geo-coordinate data (most of the 1000 or so articles inCategory:Burkina Faso articles missing geocoordinate data are just like this, some of them have coordinates on wikidata at least), they are sourced to a census where they are clearly listed as villages, and as such they passWP:GEOLAND. Though I will say that until these articles can be beefed up, a list of populated places by Province or Department would be a much more useful way of presenting this sort of data.Giuliotf (talk)23:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This fails theWP:GNG and the specific guideline forWP:BIO from what is see here. The subject is a Zambian comedian and radio presenter with only routine coverage in minor or entertainment-oriented outlets such as 247 Malawi News, Malawi24, and Zedscoop which are not reliable. The article consists largely of promotional material and an unsourced biography section, which i belive violates theWP:BLP. There is no evidence of national or international recognition beyond routine mentions or award announcements cause the current sourcing I think fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. In addition, this article was previously discussed and deleted atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Dumbo in September 2021, where consensus found the subject failed notability and sourcing standards. The present recreation repeats the same deficiencies and adds no new significant, independent, or reliable coverage. —Icem4k (talk)11:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lack of enough SIGCOV sources to suggest standalone notability, possibly more sources in its local language? as normal searching hardly turns up any sources. Not opposed to the Redirect ATD suggested above as well.Lorraine Crane (talk)23:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recentlydeleted at AfD on October 6, but was quickly recreated. As I wrote then, she was a contestant on one season of one reality television show, where she was runner-up. Besides that, she's had a handful of fairly small-scale modeling appearances. Does not appear to meetWP:ENTERTAINER, and the fairly insubstantial coverage makes me skeptical she passes theWP:GNG. The sourcing in this new draft is arguably weaker than the deleted one.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)15:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olandria has since won the People's Choice Award from EBONY Power 100, she's been listed as a luminary by Cosmopolitan, and she has been recognized by Vogue and Vanity Fair. Additionally, a runway debut for a luxury fashion brand is simply not a "small-scale" appearance. Moreover, the sourcing claim is simply false. The sourcing has greatly improved, including a plethora of coverage from established magazines and news organizations, such as CNN, New York Times, Variety, and USA TODAY. All this certainly makes Carthen meet the entertainer and notability guidelines. There are articles on Wikipedia for people with less recognition and less coverage.Daring Dolphin (talk)16:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is the case from the previously deleted article as well, with the exception that Carthen had only been nominated for the EBONY award at that time. Being included in a magazine's top 100 list (or I guess named as a "special honoree" but not included in the list?) does not tip the scales to notability. Regarding "there are articles on Wikipedia for people with less recognition and less coverage": yes, but we are discussingthis article at the moment. SeeWP:OTHERSTUFF.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)22:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for her not to have a Wikipedia page. I literally just went on Wikipedia to try to figure out if she is 27 and she went to college for four years (18-21/22) and in college she was recruited to be a elevator sales person which she said in yesterdays podcast she did for 3 years (22-25)what did she do in the other 2 or 3 years… yes, she was found on reality TV. But she has tapped into something so much bigger and that should be acknowledged.2600:4040:5F05:9600:1081:ECA6:6B0:56DB (talk)12:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This notion that nothing has changed since the previously deleted article is false. The previously deleted article (from September) did not adequately showcase her career since her appearance on the reality show, and the previous article had rather weak sources. There have been notable changes since then, which must be acknowledged as to why this article should not be deleted:
- She made her runway debut in Sergio Hudson - a luxury fashion brand.
- She won the EBONY Power 100 People's Choice Award, an award in which her fellow nominees included well-known actors, a politician, a musician, and an athlete, solidifying Carthen's notability as she won the award over them. And the magazine recognized her as such.
- The new sources in this article,which were not in the previously deleted article, validate Carthen's notability and solidify her entertainer status. If being recognized byCNN,The New York Times,Vogue,Vanity Fair, andCosmopolitan don't speak to her notability, I simply don't know what does.
In summary, a lot has changed since the previous deletion (both in Carthen's life and in this article). These changes nullify any nomination for a deletion.Daring Dolphin (talk)02:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The anonymous edits keep adding town and village flags that are not cities, and not all of them aren't even notable and encyclopedic as it lacks the information about these flags. I can't take this anymore!AlexphangiaTalk15:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALMANAC is not a reason to keep an article. We have some elements from almanacs, but we don't include many other ones (tides tables, weather forecasts, ...). There is no reason to automatically keep this one because almanacs may include this as well (nor is it a reason to automatically delete of course). The remainder of your "keep" isWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Fram (talk)07:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. As stated, it looks like we have this article of city flags for every other continent except for Antarctica in which the closest we have isFlag of Antarctica. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to the article, the subject was a major party in this $2 Billion scandal and plead guilty to crimes. As usual in such cases, a merge toTuna bonds is acceptable.Bearian (talk)22:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All this article needed was a bit of TLC. I have added text from the listed reviews, as well as details of gameplay, an infobox and an image of the cover. I've also added extra information on publication history and theCharles S. Roberts Award that it won.Guinness323 (talk)19:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has reviews and awards. This is better than 90% of the gaming articles (that's for another day). FWIW, I'm no longer a gamer.Bearian (talk)16:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears the author may have a conflict of interest as this article and others associated with its subject make up their entire, brief, edit history. I'm looking for a possibility of other sources. Notability is questionable but not a black and white "no" for me.Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk)20:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know enough about Dutch sources used here. The article relies heavily on primary sources, but there is coverage in Dutch magazines. Hard to tell if this is just because he is controversial (turning a supermarket into a mosque etc.) Does the controversy make him notable? I don't know, but here's my source assessment table. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk)00:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}.
Weak Keep-, though some of the citations are passing mentions, given the subjects awards, after some spot checks on the current citations, I am seeing some of the sources being more towards SIGCOV likehere. But a few more additions would help lean towards a more solid keep. Tried looking though google news and a brief search already shows the subjects potential notability likethis one.Lorraine Crane (talk)12:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional bio with language likeWanjirū legacy lies in her commitment to empowering communities and reimagining the mission of the church andThrough her leadership, scholarship, and ministry, she has left an enduring impact... sourced only to sources affiliated with... herself (aprimary source bio,her ownwriting, andher YouTube channel. No evidence of independent, secondary, reliable source coverage in aWP:BEFORE search, so we're left with no evidence of passingWP:GNG andWP:NBIO.Dclemens1971 (talk)02:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I currently lean towards stubbing or draftifying this, as I do find that she's a legit scholar of Kenyan Anglicanism who waspublished as a chapter author in a piece of serious scholarship. That is not enough on its own to satisfy NAUTHOR or NSCHOLAR, but there's a distinct chance there's something lurking on the Wikipedia Library that could get us over the finish line here. ~Pbritti (talk)02:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whether Anglican or Roman Catholic, an ordinary priest isn't automatically notable; there must be significant coverage.Bearian (talk)23:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a fair bit of looking the only place I have found this supposed settlement mentioned is on the map provided, where it is labelled as a town/village, and the map has an explicit disclaimer that "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations."
I tried looking at satellite imagery and the two places I think this could be are this service station/oil well (27.630795, -11.623766) or this location in the desert where something funky is happening in the historical images, though it could just be rocks becoming exposed/covered by the weather (27.622233, -11.676945).
Delete uness something can be found. You're right. The only thing that matches any diescription of a settlement there is a service-station/oil field... though oddly not the ones you listed - (27°37'20"N, 11°40'37"W) - although the first one you mentioned is also possible, and there are other buildings less than 250 metres to the south of that. Neither of them is really enough for an article though.Grutness...wha?11:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is similar toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/As-Sakn as the only place I can find any mention of this place is on the same map that explicitly says "The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations."
I am nominating this on the basis that this failsWP:V as I have been unable to find any other mentions of this place.
I am separating this from the nomination forAs-Sakn as, while the coordinates listed in the article are incorrect, the described location is somewhere around here (27.318419, -11.696195) where the sand is disturbed in such a way that is consistent with the possibility there might have been a village here at one point, however given the much more dubious nature ofAs-Sakn to my mind this sufficiently calls into question the validity of the designations on the map and I think another source would be needed to confirm that this location is/was a village.Giuliotf (talk)10:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my justification, the coordinates in the article are incorrect, more specifically they point to a place in Northern/Central Morocco, while the rest of the article describes a place in Western Sahara north of Samara, I have provided my best guess for the correct coordinates.Giuliotf (talk)11:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely impossible to verify. The source is a United Nations map which doesn't really make a lot of sense. Possibly the name of a junction? The co-ordinate is hundreds of miles away from where this is supposed to be, so the weak keep doesn't work here.SportingFlyerT·C12:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I also can't verify that the album charted. This seems to be fake since the citation leads to the wrong chart category and the citation access date is before the album was released.Helpful Raccoon (talk)20:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed source 5 and the{{music ratings}} template from the article. That was the sole review included and as user-submitted content it does not meet the definition of a 'professional rating' nor is it a reliable source that can be cited on WP. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NALBUM. I started to clean this up but the entire article would have to be blanked because of the sourcing issues. I cannot find any coverage of the artist on Google News except for promotional piece from OpenPR.com that I can't link to because the site is blacklisted. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As has been done for all other attempted articles involving that non-notable rapper, as this album is equally non-notable. Possiblyspeedy delete and salt for the reasons suggested by Wikishovel above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)17:18, 21 October 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the organisation/corporation meets the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained inWP:NCORP andWP:ORGCRIT. It passesWP:GNG andWP:NBASIC when the available multiple sources are combined. There are several sources in the article that demonstrateWP:SIGCOV and from reliable independent third-party secondary sources. Here[[7]] the corp is mentioned 42 times across over 30 sentences in this scholarly research paper. In this [[8]] the corporation is mentioned 18 times across over 10 sentences. Here[[9]] the corporation is mentioned 13 times appearing in over 7 sentences. This[[10]] comes from a very reliable third-party independent source. Here[[11]] the founder and the corporation are discussed extensively passing the significant coverage criteria. These[[12]][[13]] are also very reliable and with significant coverag.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDogmatists (talk •contribs)07:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dogmatists first off, I understand your frustration, but I think you're (understandably) underestimating just how strictWP:NCORP, and specificallyWP:ORGDEPTH are. Sources need to discuss thecompany itself, and in detail too.
Going through your links one by one: the first link is written by employees of the org and is thus not independent. The second link has one sentence of independent discussion on the org (the rest are from an interview which would be a primary source). The third link doesn't say anything at all about the org, it's just mentioning some stuff they did (seeWP:ORGDEPTH). The fourth link has the same issue as the second link. The fifth link I'm like 70% sure is covert advertising and regardless it's an interview, and thus a primary source. The sixth link is definitely the best except for the fact that this outlet doesn't seem to disclose sponsored articles despite allowing them according to its media kit, and finally link seven says it's a sponsored post at the top of the page.Perryprog (talk)00:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ Overwhelmingly promotional tone, and theyseem to accept sponsored content but I can't find any articles from them with such a disclaimer, which makes me think it's covert advertising.
Accepts sponsored posts but I can't find any articles where sponsership is disclosed, meaning this could be a covert ad. Final paragraph also is extremely suspect.
✘No
Tribune (2023)
Passing mentions.
✘No
Vanguard (2024)
Passing mentions.
✘No
Tribune (2024)
No discussion of the organization itself.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping that editor arguing for a Keep outcome could respond to the source assessment table results which offer a dismal outlook on sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!03:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this source assessment is flawed. Before commenting in this AFD I reviewed the sources and found a few reliable sources with significant coverage of the organization. The piece byPubMed Central which can be seen here[14] is a scholarly article with significant mention or discussion about the subject of this article. But the Pubmed Central peer reviewed article does not even feature in the source assessment table. This piece[15] by Anambra Daily is reliable and the coverage is significant enough to count forWP:GNG. This piece[16]] by theThe Nigerian Observer focused solely on the subject of this article. The article has a clear byline, it has no disclaimer and there is nothing to show that it is a paid for or a sponsored article. That also counts for notability. There are two pieces fromThe Punch. The subject of this article features prominently in this piece[17] by Healthwise published by The Punch and this piece[18] and the other sources contribute to passWP:NBASIC.Piscili (talk)09:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Piscili, your first link is written by employees of Sydani Group, so it isn't independent—it's also "Frontiers" (as in "Frontiers in Public Health") in the source assessment table which is the journal it was published in. (I probably should've linked to each source in the assessment table, so sorry about that.) While I do agree that that Anambra piece is good, it isn't significant enough coverage to meetWP:ORGDEPTH:Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the [...] organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements [...]. Nothing in this article actually talks about the company itself—it's all about this one thing the company did, which is not the same thing—there aren't really any statements that provide information about the company, which as I understand is the key thing here.
For Healthwise, I'm not sure I can agree that the org features prominently in that article—they are barely mentioned, and it's almost all mentioned as part of an interview, which isn't a secondary source. The only mention of the org that's outside of the interview is in a single sentence. The other Punch piece seems to be based on the same interview and has the same issue.
Finally for the Observer, I will concede that this isn't a definitive reason to dismiss it, but accepting payments for sponsored posts (as their media kit says they do) while also not seeing any posts that have any sort of disclaimer that they are sponsored is a pretty big red flag. This in combination with the post being entirely positive and incredibly promotional in tone (just look at the last paragraph) is really stretching it for me that this was independently written. If there are posts that are marked as sponsored that I missed then I would agree that it's possibly independent, but I strongly doubt that this is the case. (Plus, nearly all the statements in the article are entirely meaningless, insubstantial marketing copy. "The organization is committed to implementing impactful, data-driven solutions that empower communities across Africa and has become pivotal in driving sustainable change." )Perryprog (talk)14:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, funny that I missed that. I thought it sounded familiar but I had assumed I had just looked at that source earlier in the mess of tabs I had open.Perryprog (talk)01:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perryprog's analysis is spot on. Just to remind others, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep orsignificant sources witheach source containing"Independent Content" showingin-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must includeoriginal and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++16:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More than that, and I know this is not technically the reason for keeping an article, I think that deleting the page would make all of us unintentionally complicit in covering up a scarcely-discussed lengthy and ongoing history of human rights violations in Somalia. The work he's done is clearly important and the world should not forget what he has gone through to try help othersAesurias (talk)02:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable perWP:CORP,WP:EVENT orWP:GNG. An online search in English only turned up routine coverage,WP:NEWSORGINDIA and obvious paid placement pieces likethis one, pretty much like what's already cited in the article, and the usual social media. If I'm missing significant coverage in other languages, please ping me.Wikishovel (talk)12:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
The page for Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions should be retained on Wikipedia because the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for organizations, particularly in the context of fashion and lifestyle events in India.
1. Independent Coverage:
Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. These sources include national media outlets, fashion and lifestyle magazines, and event coverage portals. For example:
The Times of India reported on Hi Life Hyderabad and other city editions, highlighting celebrity attendance and curated designer showcases.
The Hindu and Deccan Chronicle have covered Hi Life exhibitions, emphasizing their role as major fashion and lifestyle events.
Fashion portals such as India Today Lifestyle and FashionNetwork.com have discussed Hi Life exhibitions in the context of trends, designer participation, and industry impact.
2. Verifiable Significance:
Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions is one of India’s largest curated lifestyle and fashion events, operating across multiple cities (Hyderabad, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Pune, etc.) and featuring:
Top Indian designers, brands, and jewellery artisans.
Participation of notable celebrities and influencers.
Extensive media coverage before, during, and after the events.
This level of attention demonstrates that the subject is more than a trivial or promotional entity.
3. Ongoing Influence and Industry Role:
The exhibitions have a measurable impact on the Indian fashion industry by providing a platform for emerging and established designers to showcase collections, connecting them with consumers and media. This ongoing relevance supports Wikipedia’s requirement for continued notability.
Hi Life Fashion Exhibitions satisfies Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations and events. It has received sustained, independent coverage in reputable media sources, making it a notable subject that warrants retention on the platform. Deletion would remove valuable encyclopedic content on a recognized and influential entity in India’s fashion landscape.MruThak (talk)12:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toMuvhango as was already decided in the first AfD in 2017, in which her name was spelled correctly; or possiblyDelete as a misspelling that is an unlikely search term.Muhvango appears to be her most noteworthy media appearance, and while she has a few more credits in the years since the last AfD, they are still largely unreported in reliable media. She mostly appears in unreliable trivia sites and services that reprint her own press releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)14:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage under the incorrect spelling of 'Sammuels' - Google search of "Buhle Sammuels" only yields Wikipedia. The correct spellingBuhle Samuels can continue as a redirect. I suspect that the 'Sammuels' spelling was an attempt to evade detection or to get around the previous AfD consensus. FailsWP:GNG andWP:BIO under "Buhle Sammuels" in any case.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)17:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, this is mostly procedural, following the implications of the response at RM/TR [that this article shouldn't exist]. Specifically:is thereconsensus to redirect and if so, to where?
Comments. Hi community, I created an article for Rajiv Ruparelia in my Sandbox after confirming there was no existing main space article. When I attempted to move the page I received a message that only administrators can perform the move, so I renamed the page toRajiv Ruparelia (Ruparelia Group) and added the request to move the page. Rajiv has substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources (I found more than 30 secondary sources). Given that multiple editors have independently considered creating an article about him and that there is significant coverage, I believe he meetsWP:NOTABILITY and that's a sign enough that he deserves one. Please review the article and the sources cited there in before conscious is reached.— Precedingunsigned comment added byMichealKal (talk •contribs)05:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As with motorsport, nothing to assert notability like the rest of the article. Also being previously deleted,WP:SALT this and the other linked article to prevent further recreation.
I suggest also to take these to AfD also (of questionable notabilities)
Weak keep if we ignore the history surrounding the creation of this page, I think that there is just enough significant secondary/reliable/independent coverage to meet notability.The Independent (Uganda) ([19]),Eastern Eye ([20]),The Observer (Uganda) ([21]), all seem to be GNG compliant and well written.Uganda Broadcasting Corporation ([22]) and Matooke Republic ([23]),Kawowo Sports ([24]) are all a bit shorter but still can show signs of notability. An article fromDaily Monitor ([25]) is paywalled, so unable to assess the quality of that article. An article fromNew Vision ([26]) isn't loading for me right now, but may load for others. Unable to assess but outlet seems reliable. Additionally, there is coverage from Nilepost, ChimpReports, CEO East Africa, SoftPower News, and Mbu that exist but I am unsure on the quality of the publishing outlet.GalacticVelocity08 (talk)22:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Estern Eye is news announcing his death as is the Observer, so is Kawowo and Monitor. Independ is some obituary. Matooke is an announment of his acquisition of a rally car. UBC is some coverage of his funeral. None of these assert how notable he is to qualify for notability here.BuffaloTaro (talk)23:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there is no guideline stating that coverage has to be from before an individual's death. Just because that his death was specifically covered extensively doesn't disqualify him from meeting thegeneral notability guideline. While there could be someWP:NEVENT concerns, I personally think that the coverage goes beyond that—although you or others may disagree.GalacticVelocity08 (talk)00:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BuffaloTaro While a few sources cover his death, several others includingDaily Monitor,New Vision, CEO East Africa, Watchdog Uganda, andThe Independent (Uganda) provide substantial, independent coverage of his business and motorsport career long before his passing. This depth of coverage clearly meets the requirements ofWP:GNG andWP:BIO for notability. Also note that each section calls for references to whatever is being written there in so how would you expect me to reference Motorsport section, or Business career section if the sources do not cover the same??MichealKal (talk)13:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independ is some obituary—it's tagged "opinion" ( Andrew Mwenda, BLOGS, COLUMNISTS, comment, In The Magazine, Opinion, THE LAST WORD) to boot, so we do not know how much editorial oversight the obit underwent. I don't think that specific source can help show notability.Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs)04:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned earlier, this shouldn’t be a question of notability because Rajiv Ruparelia clearly meets the criteria. Just check this list of sources about 95% of them are established and reliable media publishers in Uganda:
All of these outlets covered him as the main subject of their articles, not just passing mentions. Given the volume and depth of this coverage including obituaries, profiles, and independent analyses, it’s clear he meets the Wikipedia notability guideline for biographiesWP:BIO and the general notability guidelineWP:GNG.MichealKal (talk)12:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and what about before his death? So what if they are reliable sources - I was pointing to the notability of the subject pre-death, not the verifiability of the sources. What significance has he got in his dad's business and his hobbies, not just his poor decision-making that led to his fate? Nepo babies get media coverages too, and how many of these get Wikipedia articles? Look at thelist of longest prison sentences - how many of these have their own articles given their personal depravitiesBuffaloTaro (talk)11:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NMOTORSPORT is irrelevant to this. It's a notability suggestion. People can be notable who don't meet the criteria, and people can meet the criteria but still not be notable. This is from a 2022 RfC which you can find under the FAQ section on that page if you are interested.GalacticVelocity08 (talk)13:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not really require a person to be notable before death but it does require that notability be based on lasting, in-depth coverage that isn’t limited to their death or a single event which isn't the case here. Rajiv was notable way before his death. He served as the Managing Director ofRuparelia Group, one of Uganda’s largest private conglomerates in real estate, hospitality, and education with independent coverage about his business role, philanthropic activities, and rally driving career, not just family-related mentions. One other thing am wondering is whether you have taken time to look the sources them selves??MichealKal (talk)19:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'notable way before his death' - so are many CEOs
Most of the Ruparelia Group articles have questionable notability, I'll assure you that they will be gone within the next 12 months like this the article of this subject. As with his rally driving 'career' - refer toWP:NMOTORSPORT - most of his achievements are minor league.BuffaloTaro (talk)23:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify that this isn’t a dispute. So as a volunteer editor, I am inclined to whatever the community consensus happens to be. My intention was simply to write an article which I thought meets the Wikipedia notability standards. I know how much work it is to research, write, and properly cite a biography, so of course I'd be at least a little disappointed if the work was lost just not in the act of deletion, but in the amount of time that it took to put it together. I also noticed your username is pretty new and does not have a userpage yet. If you haven't written an article yourself yet, then it may be difficult to truly understand just how much work goes into one. If you're going against theRuparelia Group, I wish you good luck as am not associated to it whatsoever.
That being said, we're all here to learn and develop as volunteers, and I do thank you for taking the time to read and comment on this one so whatever the result, I'll abide by the community decision. We're all aiming for the same thing of having quality and neutrality on Wikipedia.MichealKal (talk)05:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disambiguation page that disambiguates only one article apart from the primary topic. I could not find any other articles that could be added to the list. I just learned that this doesn't fall underCSD G14, so here we are!—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)06:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any other topics to be disambiguated upon searching. Whenever a string containing "Jane Rigby" appears in the encyclopedia it is referring to one of the two mentioned which means a hat note is sufficient to facilitate navigation.204.111.137.106 (talk)15:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a few months, let us try this again... Non-notable due to the lack of sourcing. Some iffy sources were brought up at the last AfD, then it quickly became a series of personal attacks and was closed with no decision made. Focus on the sources or lack thereof. I don't see see any sources, even what was given last time was not good enough to show notability.Oaktree b (talk)02:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been less than two months since the prior, extensive discussion was closed as "no consensus". We already have one clear piece of significant coverage andincredibly strong indications of further SIGCOV existing (that is, several photos of newspaper stories with him in the headlines). I don't see anything that has changed since the prior AFD, or any indications of an attempt to search Zimbabwean sources for this highly-accomplished Zimbabwean athlete.BeanieFan11 (talk)02:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have attempted to search Zimbabwean sources, of which there are none online, nor do we know where/if any physical newspaper archives of such, exist. They might be sitting in the back of a library in Harare somewhere, or maybe in South Africa, but short of flying there and actually looking, it's all speculation. That's far more than what's required for AfD, and thinking otherwise isn't really helping things. You can't expect the average editor to spend that much time and effort to keep an article here. Several thousand dollars, that might still give us the same result.Oaktree b (talk)19:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tried a .zw internet search for his name, not much comes up.[27] is an article about his daughter in Australia that mentions him, not nothing, but not extensive. I'd not consider it helpful at showing notability.Oaktree b (talk)14:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason a Zimbabwean google search didn't find anything is because the entirety of the Zimbabwean media from the 1980s is offline. Yet we still were able to find one clear SIGCOV article (see last discussion) and have photos of newspaper headlines of him. Given the very, very high likelihood of notability based on what we knowexists, an offline Zimbabwean search should be performed.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the last AfD, editors made appeals toWP:NEXIST and to SIGCOV that "we know" exists because of poor quality, unverified photos on social media and personal websites that cannot be cited and to additional coverage that we presume exists but cannot be accessed because much of Zimbabwean media from the time is not available in any archive we can access, but might be available in government archives or libraries on the ground.WP:NEXIST states:
Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sourcesexist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence orcitation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.
The table providedrequires the "existence" ofMultiple suitable sources that could be cited. The "exist in the real world" link points toWikipedia:Published (akaWP:PUBLISH), which states (emphasis included in the original):
All reliable sources must bebothpublished andaccessible 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) arenever acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.
It goes on to further define "published" and, critically for this discussion, "accessible". I will also note thatWP:GNG requires use of SIGCOV that isverifiable inreliable sources. GNG directly links toWikipedia:Published and both the Verifiability policy and Reliable sources guideline contain similar language and point toWikipedia:Published. I need to look more closely at the article before deciding whether to !vote but I am disheartened to see that the 'keep' appeals are still largely based on SIGCOV that we believe ought to exist, or to have existed at one time, and not grounded in accessible, verifiable sources. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk03:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To photoshop those images, and to do itthat effectively, would take a ludicrous amount of effort for no benefit. Why would we assume that anOlympian – an athlete in the most well-covered sporting event on the planet –fabricates 1980s Zimbabwean newspapers about himself on his website, and that his family also fabricates and writes up completely fake 1980s Zimbabwean newspaper articles about him to post on social media, complete with advertisements for sporting events from the time? Is that reasonable, or does it make more sense that an Olympian just has coverage? An editor from the prior AFD noted thatA quick glance at that image by anyone who deals with a lot of historic newspapers [and] they'd easily conclude the picture is likely authentic. The extreme effort necessary to fake something like that, and nail the layouts, fonts, and phrasing of that time in my opinion, makes such theories unnparsimonious.BeanieFan11 (talk)15:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we set aside the question of authenticity, we are still left not being able to identify the articles in the photos. At best, these represent promising lead that have not panned out. It is possible that these articles were at one time published, though we have not been able to locate articles with the same headlines and the photos are largely illegible and missing critical publication details that would identify the source, so this is inconclusive. To date, they have not been found to beaccessible. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk16:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a different article was located. It wasnot without controversy but was ultimately accepted. A single article does not demonstrate SIGCOV and we don't actually know if copies survive outside of inaccessible private collections (let's assume they do—we are still left with having only one article). --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk16:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One in-depth articleis SIGCOV. Being "accessible" means it needs to be available to someone in the world, not someeditor. But in any case, as it was posted online, it is accessible to us. Furthermore, NSPORT states that having this one piece of SIGCOVdoes indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. We don't just have one article but we also have pictures of several other articles which are 95%+ likely to be SIGCOV. Deleting an article with SIGCOV and several other stories virtually certain to be SIGCOV when we haven't even attempted to searchany Zimbabwean newspaper archives for this very accomplished, pre-internet Zimbabwean athlete makes absolutely no sense. I wonder what benefit you think deleting this article would have to the encyclopedia?BeanieFan11 (talk)16:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is value in upholding the standards of notability, verifiability, etc. to maintain the integrity of the entire project. Selective quoting ofWP:SPORTCRIT andWP:NEXIST is unpersuasive. SPORTCRIT states (emphasis added):A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is,multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The full statement from the line you quoted is:
All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.
This is a minimum publication standard below which an article should not be created in the first place. Presumed notability guidelines are indications that a subject may be notable and that an article should not be hastily deleted. They are not lower standards but indications that a subject might meet the standards. Ultimately, that has to pan out, and it hasn't here.To be clear, I am recommending a redirect, not deletion. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying the reason for deleting/redirecting(nearly same effect – readers lose all information on the subject) is because we need to "uphold verifiability standards", then tell me – what's unverifiable in the article? The full quote of NSPORT doesn't change the fact that it says this article does havelikely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article, not to mention that it also saysgiven a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time [for sources to be located] for passing articles like this – where there are extremely clear indications of coverage existing.If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have thoroughly addressed this. Going back and forth is unhelpful. Let's give others a chance to digest the discussion and weigh in. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk01:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, one source of SIGCOV, that's not even enough for an article, let alone a "perhaps it might exist" source. And frankly, you can generate any image with AI easily enough. I'm dating myself saying it could be photoshopped, but the logic is the same.
The value in deleting it, well, is showing that we have a valid deletion process and that we follow the process. An honest review also includes honest deletions. If we bend the rules, that lowers confidence in the Wikipedia process as a whole. And after the Cesar Pacao kerfuffle where we got sued, I have no desire to contribute to the effort to do so.Oaktree b (talk)19:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is deleting this "following the process" or an "honest review"? Why do we haveWP:NEXIST if we're going to delete articles that both have SIGCOVand have further things that are nearly 100% certain to be SIGCOV as well? Furthermore, what is the point of NSPORT suggesting articles like this are likely notable if we're going to delete them without attempting to search the archives where we know, with 99% certainty, the coverage is? Explaining the need to delete is because "we have a valid deletion process" is circular reasoning effectively stating we should 'delete it because it needs to be deleted'. No one is going to be sued for a brief article explaining an athlete's accomplishments, nor should we be deleting notable articles out of fear of being taken to court, particularly when there is no chance of that happening.BeanieFan11 (talk)22:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toZimbabwe at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Cycling as an alternative to deletion. There's enough to warrant inclusion there and preserving the page history is valuable in the event thatpublished, accessible SIGCOV is identified and the article can be brought to standard. Of the nine references in the article, only one is to news coverage dedicated to Gillow that could be considered SIGCOV. The others are to sports reference databases and compendia, and passing mentions in articles about his daughter,Shara Gillow. None of these qualify as SIGCOV. The assertion that SIGCOV must exist is based on a series of assumptions and justifications for why the coverage has not been confirmed. It is too many assumptions, assertions, and logical leaps, even if some of the rationalization is plausible. After months of discussion and significant effort, the subject and article do not meet the standards of notability, reliability sources, verifiability, etc. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link to the Archives[29], they're supposed to have an online component, but it seems to be missing from the website. There also might not be anything in there. As explained, we've made a reasonable effort to locate sources, they're either not available, or behind a paywall that editors aren't expected to pay to use, but they can if desired. I'm not desiring such access. This seems like a fairly reasonable search for the information, but it's simply not available to the Average WikiJoe.Oaktree b (talk)20:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disregarding paywalled sites from checks is a violation ofWP:PAYWALL, and this appears to be the primary argument for not keeping this. Frankly, the fact that one good source was found previously, and possible newspaper archive sites have now been found does suggest coverage exists. But those determined not to keep this are in violation ofWP:PAYWALL.Joseph2302 (talk)15:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. No one has been able to identify additional coverage. There are poor quality photos on an old personal website that showed news clippings. They did not contain publication details like dates or the names of the publication (some contained hand-written dates). No one has been able to find the articles, behind a paywall or otherwise. Editors have speculated about the most likely publication,The Herald (Zimbabwe), and date range when articles should have been published. Other editors have identified paywalled resources that may containHerald articles from this time period. But no one has identified specific articles and no one has confirmed that they exist in these paywalled sources or elsewhere. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It takes an awful lot to get me to make an NEXIST argument, but if credible images of likely SIGCOV (plus the fairly clear-cut 26 June article) aren't enough, I don't really know what would be. Obviously the community is free to tighten the rules so that absolute proof of a GNG pass is required, and maybe that would even be a good thing, but as long as the guideline makes room for common-sense inferences I think we have no choice but to draw one here.Extraordinary Writ (talk)04:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have no idea why this article is back at AFD after a short interval since the prior AFD. TOOSOON, I think. Arguments are now divided between Keep and Redirection so we might end up with another No Consensus which is a signal to nominators that they probably should have waited longer before this return trip to AFD. But I think I'll leave that decision to another closer. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!04:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Liz and sources already present in the article. It's more than most similar articles about old Olympians where nothing is found. For those who are in favor of redirection, at least a source assessment is necessary.Svartner (talk)08:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Please consider commenting on a recommended timeline, or minimum timeline, for renomination if appropriate per the outcome. The last closer did state that renomination in less than six months was reasonable. I agree this was probably too soon at less than two months but I don't think it was entirely unreasonable given the duration of the last AfD and the particular issues at play with this article. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)19:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Small update: I can confirm that the article "A PLEASURE FOR GILLOW" is held in some library archive by Northwestern University, which I believe is sufficient to verify it is indeed accessible.Ike Lek (talk)20:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myceteae I welcome you to check. To clarify, I have personally gained access to the specific page in the form of a scan provided by Northwestern University that I unfortunately am not permitted to share.Ike Lek (talk)20:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. This doesn't change my overall assessment but it's nice to know there has been confirmation that this is still accessible outside the personal collection of a family member. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)20:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Myceteae Unfortunately, I don't actually know anyone at Northwestern. I was only able to coordinate with library services because I knew the exact issue and article I was looking for.Ike Lek (talk)18:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both perLiz (procedural: there are good reasons for not renominating so quickly when nothing has changed; AfD is too busy for that), and perExtraordinary Writ (who sums it up perfectly) in conjunction withOccam's razor: although it's possible to make theories that the newspaper articles are all a photoshopped lie, these theories are more complex and less convincing than the idea that the articles existed (one definitely did), were published on paper in the then Rhodesia, and are thus hard to find. We don't delete simply because it's hard to find.Elemimele (talk)15:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perWP:NEXIST. Maybe we need to ping editors inHarare (not sure if there are any) to do a physical search. In any case, common sense dictates that sources exist, and the article should not be deleted just because they are hard to access.--DesiMoore (talk)16:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Maybe we need to ping editors in Harare (not sure if there are any) to do a physical search" - please confine the discussion to what is realistic.Geschichte (talk)07:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Casco Art Institute - primary source
primary source
Article about "Albert Heijn wordt Allah" in Tubelight
Andrew Mwenda, BLOGS, COLUMNISTS, comment, In The Magazine, Opinion, THE LAST WORD
