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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfricaMetro[edit]

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

Article is/was unambiguous promotion that exists only to make a space to put an external link. Besides that, the topic appears to fall under our criteria for web content, and not a news organization.

Literally the only independent coverage I see is here, which besides not being a reliable source, is itself trying to sort out whether its actually a real site. Moral of the story: it's a best an aggregate blog, and at worst a copyright violation machine.

They certainly try to act like a news site. So for example, their top story, as it was when I found it, Bald Men Are Being Hunted Down In Mozambique, says it was added by "Senior Reporter". But down at the bottom is a teensy reminder that their source is actually NPR, and sure enough, it's copied verbatim from here.

So in a nutshell, not only is this patently non notable, but we can't even link to the main site because we're linking to blatantly copyright infringing material. TimothyJosephWood 15:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question It may or may not be notable, but I seen no evidence it was promotion. The article makes no claim to being other than a news aggregator. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ DGG The original version when I tagged it as spam contained wording such as: "Its roster of bloggers includes many people from African politicians to its extensive network of prominent writers" which is a red flag that it is being written for promotional purposes. It is reasonable to remove the unsourced promotional content from an article and retain other less biased sentences as a short stub, but the newspaper is not notable anyway, which is why I tagged it. The article as it stands today has been edited and doesn't seem overly promotional to me in its wording, however, as the nom has pointed out, the article misrepresents the subject in a highly favorable way, which is promotional in my opinion. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research & WP:PROMO. I've looked for sources and could not find any. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2017 (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.