Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't site any sources and is written like an advert/resume for the person that it is about. So it fails WP:GNG and a strong case could also be made for deleting the article based on TNT grounds. Although I know he is a judge and there's WP:JUDGE, the doesn't automatically make a judge notable. As it says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." So, I think given the lack sources in this case, and the fact that all I could find were extremely trivial ones, that this article should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't a resume hosting site. Also, although he contributed to a few essays, it doesn't seem like they had any impact in the field of international law or been widely reviewed. So, WP:NPROF or whatever guideline for it wouldn't apply for notability either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Eminent judge of international reputation who has served as a member of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court and who now sits on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. . This article needs cleanup but AfD is not cleanup. If policy were needed he clearly passes NPOL #1 as a judge who has held multiple international roles, but any sensible evaluation of a person of this stature would conclude that he is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Requiring an article to have sources or be deleted isn't "cleanup." Neither is dealing with one that is an advert. We deal with them all the time in AfDs and it's a basic standard of Wikipedia not to have un-sourced articles. Nowhere does NPOL or any other notability guideline say otherwise. Like I said in my nomination WP:NPOL specifically says as much and is clear that judges don't get a special pass from the notability guidelines. It's almost like you didn't even bother to read the article, nomination, or WP:NPOL before you voted. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said there was a special pass for judges. I said that he passes NPOL with flying colours, based on the fact that he is a judge who has served in multiple international roles. By the way, although it's a moot point given his pass of NPOL, he has also published several articles cited more than 50 times:, so there's a decent case for NPROF as well. As for the "un-sourced" claim: of course articles need sources. But sending an article to AfD when there are sources available is using AfD as cleanup. And I actually did bother to read the article, which is how I know he passes NPOL. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Aleatory has since removed the resume-type content and added a few citations, so most of the issues raised by the nominator are no longer of concern for this article. In addition, a judge of the International Criminal Court is presumed to be notable per WP:NPOL: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office ...." (emphasis added). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources that were added are extremely trivial. Especially the ones that are about how a criminal case able to proceed. Which only name drop him. Both of you are ignoring the whole "in-depth coverage" part of the notability guidelines. Your also leaving out the part of WP:NPOL after the cherry picked quote that says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. Which is where the lack of in-depth coverage that he still doesn't have even with the new sources comes in. BTW, I'm aware it says "local official", but as far as I know it still applies and notability is not a guarantee. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)\
 * The part about "local officials" and "unelected candidates" applies to local officials and unelected candidates. It's just irrelevant to people who have held international office. Please stop bringing it up for this particular AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:JUDGE, and WP:ANYBIO as internationally recognised in the field of law, appointed to international/national legal bodies. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, high ranking international judge. Obvious notability, and article was cleaned up.--Chuka Chief (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the "obviously notable" thing, but the article wasn't cleaned up since it still has the whole non-encyclopedic bit about his religious beliefs. You get rid of that and all you have left is that he was appointed and is a member of something. Which isn't encyclopedic either. There should at least be something about his time as a judge or more beyond "he's a judge." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per AleatoryPonderings and Catfurball's improvements. The article now has decent sourcing. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, borderline speedy at this point, as a judge in a multilateral international treaty body. BD2412  T 14:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination I might as well. There's no point in continuing it. So, can someone close this? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2020 (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.