Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayanda Ngila


 * 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, which does not preclude a redirect, which is an editorial decision. Star  Mississippi  02:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ayanda Ngila

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The Daily Maverick is not WP:RS, and without that, nothing in the article discloses much about the person. I can't find much written about him that is from sources that are WP:RS, most of what's online is from various pages loosely affiliated with the Abahlali baseMjondolo. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime,  and South Africa. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, a BEFORE only provides sources about his death/killing, nothing really in-depth. -Xclusivzik (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with Xclusivzik, there is nothing in depth here PaulPachad (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a good faith misunderstanding here. The Daily Maverick is actually the leading daily publication in South Africa. It is certainly taken as credible. It is has no political alignment to the organisation that Ngila was a member of at the time of his assassination. Certainly the article needs a lot of work but that is happening, albeit slowly. It has been substantially improved since this notice was placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Bird 1973 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete— only notable for dying. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 14:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Abahlali baseMjondolo. This killing did get coverage in the Daily News/IOL and IOL directly, however I’m not convinced that the paper and its stablemates qualify as WP:RS post-2020, and the standalone IOL website-only articles are particularly problematic. The rest of the sources seem to be associated with the organisation, and there seems to be a longstanding pattern of WP:UNDUE coverage here. Park3r (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.