Talk:Samuel Sinyangwe

Notability
The article's subject seems to have had an interesting career thus far, but I think it's unclear whether he meets WP:GNG. Has this been discussed? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even in spite the flurry of recent edits to this page following my insertion of the notability tag, there is no indication that this subject is notable. Even if we compile every opinion piece he ever wrote, every passing mention of him in the news, or mention every interaction he's had with a prominent person, none of it is enough, alone or together, to pass muster with WP:GNG. There are many subjects with far more notoriety who've had their pages deleted, I think this one has just flown under the radar. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * Ordinarily in a question over notability, I'd suggest taking the entry to AfD so you don't have to take my word for it, but here I can't honestly say I think it's good advice (although like all editors you're still welcome to if you see fit, while following the WP:BEFORE instructions on nominating for deletion). When a BLP has this much secondary coverage sustained over the course of multiple years (some of which I've added, but there's still more out there), my experience is it will certainly be kept, perhaps by WP:SNOW, so I can't recommend AfD in good faith. I notice that you've only ivoted in one AfD discussion so far, so it could be useful to participate in other AfD discussion on BLPs to get a sense of where the WP:NPERSON line is drawn and then return to this if you still think it would not survive a deletion discussion. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for replying. A discussion at AfD may be necessary, but I thought it appropriate to at first discuss the matter on this article's talk page. Most of the sources cited only make a passing reference or are his own opinion pieces, and I don't see anything independently noteworthy. Frankly, it almost reads like a resume. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, as you well know, my experience on AfD and the other issues you raised have nothing to do with the central problem I cited with this article, which is notability, and which you failed to address. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Was just trying to be helpful: my own experience was that notability turned out to be really different at AfD than I expected when I began there. But as I also said, you're free to take or leave the advice as you see fit. As to notability, I did respond with my opinion that this much secondary coverage sustained over the course of multiple years (some of which I've added, but there's still more out there) is notable. I didn't re-cite all the refs here given how many one can already find in the body of the entry--and what's more, if you did want to send to AfD we'd just do it all over again there. But ok (if necessary I'll just paste into AfD): NBC, Forbes 30 Under 30, The Fader, MTV News all specifically focus on him. So does Orlando Weekly; it counts for less toward notability because it's hometown but the national attention counters that issue. Al-Jazeera, FastCo, Splinter, 538, HuffPost and others all discuss his work. I haven't exhausted what's in the entry and there's more as yet uncited. In my own view as well as based on my experience of AfD ivoters, this satisfies the bar for WP:BASIC. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources in this article give a passing mention of the subject based on his relation to more notable figures and inclusion in the "Forbes 30 under 30" is hardly sufficient to make someone notable. These lists (and other similar ones) are published all the time and the vast majority of those included are not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Honestly, I'm reading this page and thinking, what really distinguishes this individual from any other "policy analyst?" Furthermore, I haven't found the other sources you mentioned above establishing notability. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, we disagree about what constitutes significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, the standard for notability at WP:BASIC. I do think it sounds like you should probably send to AfD: talk pages are not meant to (and in fact cannot) resolve deletion issues. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I took a closer look at the sources you linked above. He's mentioned once or twice and is in no way central to the article, and they all essentially say the same thing about him, that he worked on compiling & analyzing data with DeRay McKesson. That's not an assessment on the worthiness of whatever he's doing, I'm sure it's terrific, but this is not WP:GNG material. If that's the best that you can produce to establish notability, then AfD might be the next step. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing to work on the entry, but you have my best advice on the available sources and our notability standards, so in the interests of not bludgeoning, I'll just say, do what you need to do! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Our" notability standards are WP:GNG, and there are clear problems. And thanks, I'm reviewing your changes. It seems that this article repeatedly cites sources suggesting in passing that the subject has compiled a database somewhere. Is this data actually available? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the scare quotes. Wikipedia standards are developed by community consensus so they are in fact all of ours.
 * Yes, his research is widely available, including from links in this entry, but more importantly, reliable secondary sources discuss it repeatedly. That is what we should rely on: individual editor research into primary sources is WP:NOR. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The quotes were intended to point out your use of the royal "our" to support your argument, which was inappropriate. If you're referencing Wikipedia policy, you can just say that. And I'm not convinced these sources meet WP:BASIC: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith: I intended to refer to the community-set policy, as I already explained. Beyond that I'm going to stick to working on the entry. If as you suggest the entry isn't notable, that can only be decided by a deletion discussion so no sense going round and round here. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)