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. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanosvamhira[edit]

Kanosvamhira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This might be a last name, but is non-notable. Otherwise, the article is not very clear about what the term might be. I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage (fails WP:GNG). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Poorly sourced; delete per above. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - Although the article names sources, the content of the article is largely incomprehensible. It gives no real context (what is an "afrocentric name"?) and doesn't explain context related hints given (when, where, or what was the "Myrus dynasty"?). One purportedly online source seems to have been already dead when the article was created. Two of the three sources have titles that don't make it clear how they can be authoritative on the subject of african names. Theoretically, the subject might be notable as a surname, but the current non-article makes it impossible to verify that. The strange spelling KąñõšvãmĥĪįŕa used in the text and the fact that the creator hasn't returned since could just as well point to a hoax, though. --Latebird (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2015 (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.