Deletion of Chirundu.com

Comment: per .  A blocked user can always participate in AfD discussions (and in improving the article) anonymously
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: as per . Article does not provide sources necessary to assert notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: non-notability can be shown, because it is not clearly an advertisment and because the page can be improved (). As far as I can tell, only two portions can plausibly sound like advertising: (1) "is probably the largest internet based community", and (2) the section "social importance". Portion (1), if the word "probably" is removed, would be third-party verifiable ( #4) and portion (2) is a statement about the benefits of social networking to the country and it is, if anything, a justification for the conitnued existence of the website rather than an advertisement for Zimbabweans to use the website
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:SOAP)

Comment: The author being blocked is immaterial.  is clear. If this site were notable ANY editor should be able to find the evidence. It is a website. It's notability exists on the internet. If we can't find it there it isn't going to exist somewhere else.--Special:Contributions/221.143.25.19|221.143.25.19
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per .  There is one source there that never mentions the website at all, meaning there are really zero sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)