Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Kiilu Nyasha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. No consensus. No comment on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the cited sources, however I do think that en:WP:FRINGE does not apply here. Chenzw Talk 10:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiilu Nyasha

Kiilu Nyasha (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Difficult to tell if the subject is notable. References provided are fringe at best and not would I'd call reliable. Operator873^talkconnect 16:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

The sources provided are two newspaper articles and a nonprofit website. I don't see how those are fringe. DoSazunielle (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is cited by reliable sources and is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
notable person Rajuiu (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources seems to indicate they did speak at some event (which can be en:WP:BLP1E) and then most of the sources are her speech, interviews, can be close to en:WP:SPS as they can pay the press (in this case those are not major press but regional press) for an interview. Leaning delete. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The sources covering events are each covering different events, not the same one. Also, if press coverage can be "self-publishing", I think this makes all pages that use press coverage suspect, not just this one. It doesn't seem right. DoSazunielle (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said it is self-published, but close. This is sort of paid coverage, which doesn't differ much from publishing a book yourself and claim notablity. This make the source not-reliable. In addition, there are namely 2 events I see in the article that she spoken on - Hurricane Katrina and death of an inmate. Hurricane Katrina yes meets notablity standards, but the inmate one doesn't, per en:WP:NOTNEWS and en:WP:MILL and hence, whatsoever information shouldn't be on the person, but rather she spoken out for the people suffering from Katrina in Katrina page (which is BLP1E). I don't even know does her speaking out makes her notable at all, many had spoken out, but those are assuming the best case scenario. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, how do you know it's paid coverage? Also, the inmate is Mumia Abu-Jamal, who is very well covered and has a page linked in the article. Events related to him are often newsworthy and not run-of-the-mill. DoSazunielle (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, then the advocacy of this person can be considered to be included in both the inmate article as well as the hurricane. Events that are related to the inmate can be newsworthy, but this person advocating is just one of the many news about the inmate, which make it run off the mill. I also never said it is paid coverage, but close. This (source 5) is about a show of her from a site that supports filmmakers like her, how can this be independent. This goes beyond paid, this is sheer advertising already. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not demonstrate the person meets notability guidelines, and no others can be found. --IWI (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I just found a new source and added it after I saw this vote. I also added several after this was nominated. There are even more sources I haven't put in yet. How many are needed? DoSazunielle (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2 independent, reliable, and in depth (cover her in depth) sources are required. The issue isn't the existence of many sources, the issue is that does there exist 2 independent,reliable sources that cover her in depth. See en:WP:SIGCOV. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is unreliable or not independent about the newspapers and websites used? DoSazunielle (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See above, I just analysed one of the source, source 5. I don't think I need to go through all, but either they aren't totally reliable (having some POV issues, fringe issues), or not independent (like having some close relationship with the subject) or they are just one liner, it cannot be just 1 line coverage. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see those issues in all of the newspaper sources. No one has explained how any of the sources are fringe either. DoSazunielle (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Your talkpage clearly shown someone had explained en:WP:FRINGE to you. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, @Rsk6400: explained why they believe non-mainstream ideas about history shouldn't be on the page for Rwanda, but I don't understand how the newspapers used for this article are fringe. They are very different than the ones from the Rwanda page.

This request is due to close on ~~16:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)~~, seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

Extending to 16:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC) due to additional content and sources added to the article. Chenzw Talk 03:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.