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. 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

Miller Matola

Miller Matola (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)

Subject has an undoubtedly great career, but definitely not English-Wikipedia-notable. Sources range from unreliable interviews to unbylined HQRS. See analysis before for more info.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No WP:DOGBITESMAN. ✘ No
No He was a councellor, clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. No We can't trust a source that has not editorial standard. Yes Ditto ✘ No
No The lack of editorial integrity coupled with the lack of byline here makes it difficult to believe this is a reliable publication. No Ditto ✘ No
No Ditto above. ✘ No
No need of assessing this, adds no pinch of salt to notability. ? Unknown
Yes No Though per this, but at the end this is unbylined and I would not consider it reliable in this case. No Ditto. ✘ No
? Unknown
No Ditto above. No ✘ No
Yes Yes No ✘ No
No No ✘ No
Yes No No ✘ No
No Interview. No Unbylined. No Fails WP:SIGCOV regardless. ✘ 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}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sangonet

Sangonet (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)

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to verify its notability and impact, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stor-Age

Stor-Age (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)

As a for-profit company this needs to meet WP:NCORP rather than GNG, and while there are lots of passing mentions and press releases, I'm unable to find substantive intellectually independent sources. There is also a history of UPE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Witwatersrand School of Architecture & Planning

University of the Witwatersrand School of Architecture & Planning (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)

I don't see why this school of a university needs its own article. All the sources from the university's website, so basically it's repeating information easily found on the web. It needs third party coverage which is lacking. Fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, it sounds like you're judging the article on the basis of its current version, which goes against Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability. Did you consider Wikipedia:Merging it to the main university article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there third party sources out there that meet WP:ORG? LibStar (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched [Witwatersrand "School of Architecture & Planning" -wikipedia] in google news and it didn't reveal much useful. Google books is full of 1 line mentions. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for a Merge and what would be the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Largely agree with nom. A cursory search for sources reveals nothing nearing making a separate article for this division of the university. Not too different from the architecture faculties of other similar universities in Australia.  GuardianH  19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa Proposed deletions

Also check the list at WP:PRODSUM

Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/South_Africa
No tags for this post.