Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EZone57

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EZone57

[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)

The claim for notability of this website seems to rest principally on winning one online award, the importance of which I am unable to effectively assess, but it ain't the Emmy. African media are often tricky to evaluate because of lack of international coverage, but my feeling here is that WP:NWEB is not satisfied. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to make matters worse the article appears to misrepresent the award: according to the provided source [1] (reliability unclear), the award was not for "Music Website of the Year" but for "Best Blogger" and was awarded to the subject's founder. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hinging on one dubious "award" (which is not even about the "website" itself) to misuse Wikipedia for promotion. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the blatant biased rationale of the nom. I've just been commenting about this and I came here and read this! Since the supposed award comes from an Africa organisation and not one from the western world like the Emmy then it is not notable? Since African newspapers are African - going by your "international coverage" comment (which you meant the western media) - then African sources are not reliable? Are you for real? This is classic systematic bias which has affected many African articles and driving away new and old African editors. I would ask admins to check the nomination history of this editor and close this Afd for the poor rationale evident above - which in my view is a direct contravention of our efforts to fighting systematic bias on English Wikipedia. I do not mind if this article is renominated with a proper rationale - and even deleted, but under no circumstance should we accept or encourage this type of thinking on the Wiki project. Absolutely terrible!Tamsier (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... simmer down. I'm expressly stating in the nomination that I'm having trouble assessing the validity of the sources, because I am aware that most of us don't have a real understanding of what works as reliable or independent in African countries. If this sourcing had been presented for, e.g., a US-based site, I would immediately label it as non-notable; as it is, I admit I can't really tell, and am asking for input. - So please keep the outrage for situations where it is merited, okay? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really! I am quite calm. Your rationale above is evident for others to see. There was no confusion. I do not live in the US but I can mostly tell a reliable source from an unreliable one if it is in a language I can read and understand. It is irrelevant which part of the world the source originated from. That's what's called good editing. Other people's geographical location or culture should have have no bearing on the reliability of the source. Even if you cannot tell whether a source is reliable or not, we do have the reliable source noticeboard. Your inability to identify reliable African sources is not a ground for nominating or deleting an article. And who is "most of us"? I have interacted with numerous editors over the years (both on English and French Wiki) who are not of African descent but were able to identify reliable African sources and indeed created African related articles. Sorry, but I don't know who you are referring to when you wrote "most of us". By the way I'm not "Dude" to you, but let's not derail this poor nomination any longer. The issue is not about the nomination of this article. I couldn't care less if this article is nominated or even deleted. The issue here is your way of thinking going by your delete rationale and comment above. I find that pretty worrying.Tamsier (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of us" clearly refers to the very systemic bias you allude to: the fact that the large majority of editors are not from African countries, have little knowledge of the validity of most sources, and -surprise! - are hence well advised to ask for input when making these judgement calls. If you feel inclined to provide such input instead of parading your cultural high dudgeon around, I suggest you do so here; if you just want to blow off steam about my personal shortcomings, take it to my or your talk page. Although it seems to me that if you manage to take offence from a nomination such as mine, which is about as hedged as you will see at AfD, you might be in the wrong corner of WP at the moment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to ascertain proof of WP:notability especially of the award that might offer a deciding factor towards notability. The same could be offered for the "Eastern Music Awards" apparently launched in 2017. Some can easily be checked like the "South African Music Awards (SAMAs)", "MTV Africa Music Awards", or even the "All Africa Music Awards". I do not see evidence that anyone is being biased just for questioning something. That is why we are admonished to assume good faith and maybe a civil talk page inquiry if there are concerns. In a quest to provide all information known to man, and protect all editors, we also have to recognize that at least a part of this must include equal shouldering of the responsibility to provide good articles that would be a two-way street instead of trying to shoot the messenger. Otr500 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2019 (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.