Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mai Mai Kata Katanga

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 keep. KTC (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Mai Kata Katanga[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable group fighting for Kata Katanga (meaning Katanga secede). Only recently formed. One reference provided is BBC article, but it's not about the group, but the fight for Katanga's succession over the years with passing mention to the newest group being Mai Mai Kata Katanga. Caffeyw (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gédéon Kyungu Mutanga until additional reliable sources emerge to justify splitting off a standalone article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article now has as much info as Gédéon Kyungu Mutanga, which is not an article nominated for deletion. To Caffeyw, it is your call to judge this 'non-notable', but with nearly 400,000 refugees as a result of their conflict, most would rather not deem it non-notable. To call it "passing mention" is also a judgment call; I clearly thought it was all about the effects of their rebellion. JustBeCool (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JustBeCool - Your confusing the subject of this article with the overall conflict. I've never said the conflict is not worthy of an article. The articles referenced mention the overall conflict and mention that this is the newest group. Until the group becomes notable in it's own right it belongs on a page about the conflict or the leader if he's considered notable enough for one. Caffeyw (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not too familiar with this topic. So you admit the conflict is noteworthy, would this faction be noteworthy? Can you name any other group or leader on the separatist side other than Kata Katanga here, let alone one that is more prominent than Kata Katanga? JustBeCool (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG. We can allow this brand new article to grow and expand over time and through regular editing by those who wish to build content. Apart from the two reliable sources ciring the article, we also have the topic spoken of in substantial articles by the global news agency Inter Press Service [1] another by Zimbawbwe Independent [2] another in African Review [3] and shorter ones by The Vatican Today [4] and Agenzia Fides [5]. I urge the nom to pay a little more attention to WP:BEFORE and WP:WIP prior to making a decision to nominate new articles for speedy or for AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did read those? Two of the five are the same story, and the other three of five are the same story also. Of those only the one posted twice seems to be about the group. The others where about a failed prison break and mentions it was the group that was trying to break into the prison. Caffeyw (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not expect nor demand that brand new articles be perfect, as Wikipedia is a work in progress with set processes through which we encourage building upon new contributions. We study WP:DEL#REASON to determine if something is truly worthy of deletion. We tag for editorial attention and nominate for deletion only as a last resort, not as a first resort. We look to see if there are options that serve the project, options that encourage improvements and do not chase off new contributors. And we remember that the topic of a Wikipedia article need not be the sole topic of an outside source providing verifiability of facts. And, as we do not dictate to the content of authored articles outside of Wikipedia, a topic's receiving coverage in multiple independent sources is the crux of WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I emphatically agree with MQS's analysis of the deletion process above and I also agree with the analysis ofthe sources. There's sufficient coverage, and we're usually fairly generous about affording coverage to political movements, in order to prevent cultural bias (the exclusion of articles from some geographic areas because of the relative difficulties in our current difficulty in finding as many sources as we would elsewhere.) DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (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.