Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF


 * 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 procedural close & restart. Put simply, this discussion is too much of a mess to even begin trying to form a consensus. It has been disrupted by IP's, new accounts, single purpose accounts, to the point that it is unworkable as an internal process discussion. I will be creating a new discussion at Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (2nd nomination), semi-protecting the discussion to minimize disruption, linking to my close here, and restarting from scratch. Daniel (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bmcabana SF

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recently recreated article about an artist which does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Full disclosure, this subject has had a history of sockpuppetry in the AFC space see the history at Draft:Bmcabana SF to the point of the draft space being salted. If this subject is deemed not sufficiently notable for inclusion I do recommend salting this title as well. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. In addition to the comments above: since salting Draft:Bmcabana SF, a draft has been created at Draft:Bmcabana-SF. This draft was twice turned down at AfC, followed by the article being created directly in mainspace. Fully support salting of all variations of this title. --John B123 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The artist did an interview with the south african news giant The Sowetan [1 ] and its a reliable source. the newspaper is also available on pressreader.com (11:01 PM, 27 July 2021 (CAT)
 * Im not connected to the subject or any other party, I have helped improve other articles already in the main space and all seems to work just fine, im still trying to contribute more meaningful (11:04 PM, 27 July 2021 (CAT)
 * An interview is generally considered a primary source and are not considered for notability this falls under WP:NOR. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, non notable individual who doesn’t meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Additionally I don’t think the author has been assuming Good faith, he/she has been removing content from quite a number of articles -,, . -Xclusivzik (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to draft space True, because the pages you listed all showed at the top of each page that the pages had a number of issues that needed to be solved by any available editor, I was available then I removed broken links and links that did not support the statements made, yes the pages where created by you I read the page information, you made slight mistakes, which was no harm because i was there to assist, but you have since reverted the changes, i don't know why because the issues are still there, (12:06 PM 28 July 2021 (CAT)
 * Struck through older contradicting vote, the earlier one was changed to keep later then this one. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely unfair treatment now I'm receiving emails from unknown individuals who tell me, they saw the article I created was nominated for AFD, they claimed they will close the discussion and that they are administrators. They insisted that my article will be restored after deletion, only if I paid $500. But thanks to the scam alert Wikipedia warned us about. I didn't entertain such scammers, because I don't want to pay anyone for the articles I create to be on Wikipedia, I only want my articles to be on Wikipedia only if they meet guideline policies. I urge others to avoid requesting AFD and then run to emails of editors to propose courtesy for closing discussions. Lets all practice Good faith when editing (04:06 PM 29 July 2021) (Cat)


 * Keep The individual, he amongst other have helped us as community fight crime in our community of Seshego, as Wikipedia reader and editor, I have seen on SABC news Channel being interviewed about the course he does, Wikipedia is not about people who are only famous, but also about people who change lives,https://www.dailysun.co.za/News/thugs-hide-in-abandoned-house-20200623 this link was about they organisation he is part of the founders of, the story coverage was seen making the news back in 2020. Thank you. (09:14 29 July 2021) — Zillythekid44 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is a place which we record what reliable sources have said about notable subjects. Lots of people do good things that aren't notable enough for inclusion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep COI or not, Zefu zungu has a point. Just claiming "Fails X" is not helpful when a lot of sources are mentioned. And claims that those sources are all unable to be correct either [link]https://reviewonline.co.za/polokwane-news-team/ appears to be a reliable source (editorial board and all) covering the subject in detail (remember, blogs by reliable sources are usually reliable sources as well). Same goesbfor the coverage in the The Sowetan, and SAGOODNEWS https://sagoodnews.co.za, bothe are clearly reliable sources, That this contain interview parts does not disqualify them ad reliable sources. While Roodepoort https://Roodepoortrecord.co.za accepts submissions, it [performs editorial control]https://roodepoortrecord.co.za/about-us-new/, which should suffice to make it a reliable source as well. A short Google news search finds other sources and articles but not in one place, but they also give details aboutbthe subject, the sourced articles meet criteria for Wikipedia inclusion for basic criteria WP:BASIC
 * Regards WIKIZILE 09: 56 AM 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This keep !vote was posted by an IP adding a signature of an editor who hasn't posted since February 2021. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We have 2 sources which seem to be reliable from local online zines, published less then a month apart. We also need to see sustained coverage. Of the 2 sources that can be considered significant about this artist they are quite simply 2 feel good stories about a local artist who is trying to follow his dream. He may one day be notable enough when his music charts or if he lands some significant roles in multiple notable productions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This article was nominated for deletion only after several  hours after it was created, so of course its not going to be in perfect shape. Deletion should be considered  after conducting a thorough  WP:BEFORE search and examining the entire extent of the subject's coverage in reliable  sources, rather than just whats currently  in the article, Regardless  this subject meets WP:GNG criteria with significant  coverage. Khorommbi.rudzani 11:49 AM 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This keep !vote was posted by an IP adding a signature of an editor who hasn't posted since October 2018. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and stubify references in WP:RS are very short, but enough to prove existence, profession and birth palce/ backround. The light of coverage that has been brought up seems sufficient to meet NMUSIC. Kelutral (13:49 AM 30 July 2021) (UTC)
 * Comment This keep !vote was posted by an IP adding a signature of an editor who hasn't posted since November 2018. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Obviously you haven't read WP:NMUSIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:WHATNOT. Articles need to do more then just prove existence they need to tell us why they are notable and prove it. This article fails that on all accounts. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It is of less fortunate for the author and editor to violate part of policy, but the article meets criteria for inclusion. The article passes GNG per sources provided, although the article still needs to provide more insight about the acting career. Salting of the title will be unfair treatment, because the subject is not the one who created the article, punishment should result for the editor and not the subject, it also appears to me that the editor is still a rookie, but pulled the article right. So far everything is clear about this article. The discussion should just end. MukwevhoM (15:02 AM 30 July 2021) (CAT)


 * Comment This keep !vote was posted by an IP adding a signature of an editor who hasn't posted since July 2020. --John B123 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, I didn't log in because I'm using a mobile device, IP policy also IP address, outlines that different editors may use the same IP address in some instances, but in this case the IP has not made an edit before because this is my new device, I never used it to log on my Wikipedia account, normally I use my desktop,a vote is a vote, sometimes they come from people who don't have registered accounts, that don't stop them from taking part in this discussion. IP is not a concern now, but whether the article should be kept or not, my last edit has nothing to do with this discussion. Taking a break doesnt mean my days as a visitor/reader and editor are over, the comment above is not even supported by policy, let's avoid SABOTAGEbotage. PLEASE DON'T EDIT THIS COMMENT IF IT'S NOT MADE BY YOU. MukwevhoM (08:52 PM (CAT)
 * The comment was not deleted simply moved to the talkpage where off topic conversations can be brought up like the forgery policy per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by WP:Consensus, IP address checking was never a way of achieving consensus. Proper concerns are raised during discussion, IP never been a factor, im certain that you once made an edit withoiut loggin in, the reason remains with you and never you been asked about it till today, so why raise it in this discussion.Do not edit or remove this comment (12::35 PM 31 July 2021) (CAT)


 * Keep Notability is notability, even if the article is permastub. The fact that sources that cover news in the country have featured the subject should be considered. As per sources found as well, the article is not perfect but seems better to expand than delete. Motseki 6:16 PM, 30 July 2021 (CAT)

Off topic conversation about WP:SIGFORGE moved to talk page


 * Added a source assessment chart McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The first link appearsthat the website is currently on going maintanance, which most websites do, especially month end, i own and operate a website i know. Your assesment might be biased, because with The Sowetan link you need to sign up with them to be able to read their articles most news sources do that we all know that, so the assessment dont give enough clearity that you truly signed up to the news websites to be able to read full articles about the subject. The discussion should just continue despite the assessment you presented (07:32 PM 29 July 2021) (CAT)
 * I did make an error on the Sowetan article I apologize there were 2 links in the reference I clicked on the first one not the second. I have updated the table to reflect the proper source which I did read the article. As for the first one I will check it again tomorrow however by looking at this site's homepage I don't think this will be considered reliable or help towards notability as it seems to be IMDb for music site. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The assessment does show GNG, and for a fact we know not all articles have ticked the assessment boxes. Be sure to subcribe to the news website next time to see reference for other articles and not only this one, it helps establish notability and inclusion. (07:55 PM 30 July 2021) (Cat)

(12::48 PM 01 August 2021) (MP)
 * Comment This subject has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio stations, music and television networks. The subject also had his music placed into the metro FM, which is a national radio station in South Africa. So this shows that the subject fulfills the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO.


 * Keep Has been featured on the subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio station or TV networks. Meeting WP:MUSICBIO, on 14th July 2019 MetroFM, Held a 24 minute interview with Bmcabana SF, this would qualify as a substantial national broadcast featuring the subject of the article. KayGSwat 12:50 PM, 01 August 2021 (MP) — KayGSwat (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - This is the second new user that have joined and posted straight away on this discussion. --John B123 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment to reply above comment The goal of the project permits, new users have the right to be treated with respect and civility, as long as they are aware that editors with more experience might display some sort of Scrutiny. Wikipedia community seeks to attract new and we'll informed users knowledgeable in a particular "SUBJECT". Wikipedia is not a platform for scrutiny.

The vote comment illustrates and demonstrates that the new user adheres to policy and standards, you can see why they signed their comments, this is encouraged in all cases. Good reasoning is always allowed for any user. Seems to me some editors are already accusing the user of a Single Purpose Account. Being a new user is not a reason for identifying a person as an SPA, especially when they sign their comments. Some well established users who edit articles and make comments on a variety of subjects do not have user pages. In addition even the most experienced editors occasionally forget to sign their comments, Scrutiny is not to be taken as a factor for this discussion. New accounts should not be how we assess competency. MukwevhoM (03:52 PM 01 August) (CAT)
 * Once again you are forging a signature please either log in to your account or stop forging signatures. Please read WP:SPA. This is a subject that is riddled with socks which means anything that is suspect of sockpuppetry will be flagged. Let me list some of the factors that have been identified as suspect so far forged signatures by ip editors, new accounts making their first edit ever in an AFD, several IP edits making similar edits with the same edit summaries and last but not least one user editing another's comments while claiming it was their own spelling mistakes. Nothing out of policy has happened here except your refusal to take off topic topics to the talk page and continued forgery of signatures. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment You can request a checkuser if you feel there is soccking, nobody has a problem with that, you even went to a point of coming to my user page with your personal issues, and went to a point of using the word "Crap" when addressing me on my talk page, you later reverted your comment and and deleted the history since you are an editor with that previlage, to make it a polite. you having been personal at the start and never trying to point out policy. i dont take you erious anymore after the words you used to address me on my talk page. I hope you get addressed for your abuse of power. (04:55 PM 01 August 2021) (CAT)
 * I do not have the ability to delete anyone's contributions, even my own, I am not an administrator. I have never been personal, I may have referred to some edits as crap, which is within my rights, but it was on the content not the editor. I have provided the policies for you to read through and help you with the policies and you continue taking them as personal affronts instead of learning opportunities. I tried to to take topics to talk pages so it would be more private, you however wish to air them on this forum instead. I apologize if you feel offended by me calling out suspect and out of policy edits and behaviour but it is not personal. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You have oppressed me for too long, i want to forgive you, because my relationship with you will not only benefit either parties but wikipedia as website, but i will only be able to that after this discussion has reached a consensus and closed. this typo of behaviour displays long waves of great violation to policy, since you found it justified is typing provacative words like "crap", you aught to resort to conflict, and then run to make a report and notice about another users actions against policy, i respect your level of experience on wikipedia, your years of activity explains it all, but i think even long serving editors should once in a while take time reading policy A-Z. Thank you (05:06 PM 01 August 2021) (CAT)
 * By all means please let me know which policy I am in violation of. I have given you every policy that I think you or the others are in violation of so you can read and learn. So far you have only ever claimed I violated policy without citing which one so I could learn from my mistakes. I do make them and I don't know every policy on Wikipedia, as there so many. So please let me know which one I am violating so I can improve.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You dont need policy for the word "Crap", even a 3 year old baby knows best never to use the word, what about you editor. (05:21 PM 01 August 2021) (CAT)
 * I see where the confusion is this is the edit which I used the word crap to describe the off topic conversation, this was 100% about the content and not aimed at anyone in particular. That was not on your talk page but the talk page of this discussion. There was no need to clean it up it's still there and still on point. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Im not sure how the reliable sources provided is entirely undeserving, In actual fact, there isnt really any undeserving source in the article, except ones that talk about the course he took part in, that is to be recorded as a historical moment in South Africa, i did some finding on the internet about the subject, an the content of the article are pleasing. AFD is not an option right now Looking at the references, it appears to me to be just notable enouhg for inclusion. They are not fabulous, but they are there, he is a musician on the national and international stage, and the subject has recieved some quality press for their work, My research also showed that the subject is well known in South Africa in relation to hi musical career, thus Meets WP:MUSICBIO. (talk)(10:51 AM 02 August 2021) (UTC) — Derela Khekhe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The 2 sources which are considered reliable are minimal and not enough to prove anything about how this artist meets WP:MUSICBIO or why they are otherwise notable. One source is an interview more about a program he is a part of it does not say that he has actually been put into any rotation. The rest of all the sources don't even mention him, sales sites or are no more then a single line of text that only confirms they are a rapper. I have still seen no proof at all that allows anyone to verify that they have been placed into rotation on any national radio or music television station. Coming into a discussion like this and making claims that they meet so and so policy without providing any actual proof as per the WP:PROVEIT policy will often be discounted. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The number of sources has never been a concern, as long as the sources are reliable sources and have covered or feature the subject, there are many articles about subjects that have been included before with only 2 sources like Clement Maosa and Rahki, the article did meet criteria for inclusion with just only 2 sources, hence I argue that number of sources is not considered, as long as sources meet WP:RS,unless you make claims that RS publishes hoax. Your reasons are cold and irrelevant to the discussion. (07::55 PM 02 August 2021) (CAT)
 * I would recommend reading through WP:GNG particularly sources. You will see I am arguing the quality and depth of the 2 reliable sources and I am saying they are not good enough to establish why the subject is notable. You will also find quantity of sources is a criteria especially if they are not of sufficient depth or quality. It may be good to also look through WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to point out that similar articles exists about subjects with only 1 or 2 sources since your arguement at the start was about number of sources. For a fact the sources on that article does prove notability and meet GNG, individually  sources may not provide enough depth,as you mentioned,but the sources combined for a fact we find enough evidence that comes to light, that the subject  is a musician in South Africa. This is supported  by the following sourcesp.6 newspaper p.2 newspaper  including  the The Sowetan link, they provide enough  evidence  to prove notability.all the sources does acknowledge the subject as a musician and pleases WP:MUSICBIO. (04::55 PM 03 August 2021) (CAT)


 * 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.