Deletion of African Press Organization

Comment: I'm unconvinced by any of the reasons given for keeping this (but willing to be convinced). Searches for reliable sources in English and French find nothing substantial http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&q=%22African+Press+Organization%22&um=1http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&q=%22Organisation+de+la+Presse+Africaine%22&um=1http://books.google.co.uk/books?ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&q=%22African%20Press%20Organization%22&um=1&sa=N&tab=nphttp://books.google.co.uk/books?ned=uk&hl=en&num=100&q=%22Organisation%20de%20la%20Presse%20Africaine%22&um=1&sa=N&tab=np. I'm a very strong advocate of |countering systemic bias, but I don't see why we should give any particular leeway to an organisation based in Switzerland, a country that has very good internet coverage. In fact we would be perpetuating systemic bias by keeping this, by implying that a European organisation claiming to represent the African press is more notable than African organisations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: Nonnotable organization that fails .   doesn't discriminate ''either way'' based on nationality, and we should not assume that there are magical sources out there that are invisible to our eyes if we can not find them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: seems to fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: News agency UPI, AP, and Reuters would be far easier to source for us, but that's because they're western press organizations and have been around so very long. It would seem that the African Press Organization|APO is doing the same thing but in a different hemisphere. Any concern with content can be corrected with . So tag for expansion and let the article grow within the  set by wiki
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Cleanup (WP:CLEANUP||WP:DEADLINE)