The Africa Report: Fails WP:GNG .  WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources.  Current references are from the org itself, a one para "description' of the item, and a 404/server failure error. Puff piece. Note that the item is stated to have won the 'Diageo Africa Business Reporting Award', an award by a drinks manufacturer about which I can find no significant coverage, thus have concluded that it is a 'Marketing Award' for Diageo (to sell more drinks?), and does not confer notability. Refunded after soft delete at prior AfD, and renominated for a fuller discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , Organizations , Business , Advertising , Companies ,  and Africa . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — per my reasonings for contesting the soft deletion: While I doubt anyone thinks the page itself is fitting, even a cursory glance at the actual The Africa Report site would show that it is clearly notable — interviews with heads of state, interviews with business leaders, analysis on politics across the continent, mentions in the The New York Times and other papers, etc. This seems like a case of a bad article for a notable subject getting just deleted instead of flagged and fixed. Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 03:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Watercheetah99 Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it.  We encourage you to be bold in updating pages , because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox . If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse .   🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment overall I oppose since per comment above it seems notable, however there is urgent need for better citations. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. "Seems notable" isn't sufficient, there needs to be some actual new sources brought to this discussion to address concerns in nomination statement. If this journal is "clearly notable", finding reliable sources shouldn't be difficult. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Keep . The subject lacks notability. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 15:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Micheal Kaluba , this opinion makes no sense at all. If you believe the subject lacks notability, why are you arguing for a Keep? And a Procedural Keep at that.  I don't think you are taking participation in AFD discussions very seriously, investigating the article and reviewing the sources. L iz Read! Talk! 05:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Liz , there is no need to be hash to me. With Procedural keep, I mean more work needs to be done to the article or pushing it draft other than deleting it, someone dedicated their time to write that article. So don't think that I am not taking this serous, I personally have other things to do but here I am because I believe in this okay? Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet you are doing nothing but offering nonsensical rationales that provide no help whatsoever. Uncle G ( talk ) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisting . Delete. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 09:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why? Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 18:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article cites a press release and no independent sources.  Looking, I can find no independent sources.  This is clearly not a language problem, as this is an English language publication.  This is a problem that no-one outwith the publishing company has documented the publishing company's magazine.  Moreover the vaguely handwaved aforementioned "mentions in the The New York Times and other papers" simply do not exist at all, as far as I can determine. Uncle G ( talk ) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly, there is no possible way you actually looked if your takeaway was that the mentions "simply do not exist at all" — there is a button with "NYT" in the find sources parentheses above, there are three recent mentions right there.  More in Foreign Policy , Africanews , the BBC , the Washington Post , DW , The Economist , The Guardian , Mail & Guardian , and more.  You could’ve genuinely just asked for the other mentions and I would've replied with them instead of pretending to have looked and found none.  Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 04:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per @Watercheetah99 (above), the AR gets mentioned—and recently—as a source in many WP:RS/Ps , such as New York Times 1 2 3 , BBC 1 2 , and Washington Post 1 .  Here is one of the Editorial Board members of the notable African Affairs journal, Nic Cheeseman , noting in his bio that he also writes for the African Report .  Here is the African Report appearing as a source in papers on JSTOR .  Sympathy with the nom as it is not an obvious case (my initial searches were inconclusive), but I do think that very high-quality global news sources (and academics) have regard for this publication, and it therefore should be kept (and improved hopefully).  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 13:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And obviously, it is a part of the world that has proportionally fewer quality news sources, so when we find one that is well regarded by developed world quality sources, we should protect and help it—as sources is our thing :) Aszx5000 ( talk ) 13:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist to consider sources presented by Watercheetah99 against our GNG guideline.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Aszx5000 's well stated !vote. Here's to hoping they update the article to reflect informaiton from the sources they list. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep