Talk:Zulu Wikipedia
{{Old AfD multi| date = 30 October 2008 (UTC) | result = no consensus | page = Zulu Wikipedia }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Wikipedia|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Books|referencework=yes}}
{{WikiProject South Africa|importance=low}}
}}
Reliable?
Fram, regarding this edit, can you be specific? The applicable clause is "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The link is from my blog, and I have been quoted [http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2888&iArticleId=4053879 here] and [http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=4122938 here] and contributed an article [http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2888&iArticleId=3796358 here] on the topic. Independent Newspapers is South Africa's largest media company, so would suggest it fits the bill as reliable third party. The article on my personal blog provides the best summary of the situation, to my mind. I suggest that someone coming to an encyclopedia and wanting to find out more about the topic would benefit more from having it there than not, which is the ultimate principle. However, since there's a conflict of interest, I'll leave it other editors to decide and to restore if they wish. Greenman (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete this article
100 < articles < 1000 is tiny, this article isn't notable, less all the other wikis out there with the same amount of pages become notable! See the navbox of wikis for more info. {{ping|Yamla}} do your thing. 94.193.111.99 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)