Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 06:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt

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

There is no coup yet occurring in Zimbabwe. This is OR, Crystal, etc. The army directly states it is not taking over the government or deposing Mugabe. None of the sources say there is a coup. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - premature for sure, but by the time this AfD is scheduled to end, we may have a better picture on what to do with it. ansh 666 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems like the "better picture" is already arriving. GNG met, and I have little doubt it'll survive WP:NEVENT if it's ever nominated again. ansh 666 06:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per several RS there is a coup attempt (and yes, when the army moves to remove "criminals" around a very old leader and "safeguard" the leader it is a coup - despite the army saying its not (plotters almost always claim they are not performing a coup)). Determining lasting significance is difficult at this point, but most coups, even failed ones, are notable. Per WP:RAPID this should be kept at present.Icewhiz (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... for now. Let's see how this event plays out. GAB^gab 04:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is in fact speedy keep. It was declined CSD, and mistagged with inapplicable tags and now this.... All by one person. Whether coup succeed or not Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with unlimited space and it documents history for posterity. And we can't predict the amount of coverage this event will receive but it is more than obvious that all coup attempts draw immense public interest. This article started with 3 solid sources; BBC, ABC and FOX while Turkey 2016 coup started with only 1 source see how it was then and see it today. What if it were deleted as speculation then? — Ammarpad (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, but given the coverage I expect that this will likely be a 'keep' in the future as well. Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Several sources.Alhanuty (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coups and coup attempts are almost always notable, and this one's already well in advance of GNG standards and more than likely to grow beyond that per Ammarpad's analogy with the 2016 Turkish events. I'm also concerned with the earlier CSD tagging as a "hoax". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep SABC reporting within the last half hour Mugabe and family under house arrest. Sure sounds like a coup to me. DarkAudit (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I am genuinely concerned about this whole situation. At the time the page was created, there were absolutely no RS' saying that a coup was occurring, only that there was unrest and that the military denied it was a coup. What has happened since then is unimportant. The fact is a page was created before it was factually accurate. What is the proper action to take then? Wait under the hopes that it may become true in the future? The concern isn't that the event isn't occurring or that it isn't newsworthy, but that it isn't a coup, or at least that it was not a coup at the time. Saying something happened when it didn't happen seems like a hoax to me. I'm not sure what else to say. Maybe I was misunderstood or maybe there is just a consensus to keep factually inaccurate articles. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 06:28, 15 November 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.