Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine Mafa


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Divine Mafa

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

BLP of questionable notability, and it appears that the subject has repeatedly requested the deletion of the article. If this were Prince Charles, that obviously wouldn't matter, but we're dealing with a small-business owner here. Regardless of the subject's preferences (and more importantly), he just doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Only a couple hundred Google hits; owning a boutique does not require encyclopedic coverage faithless   (speak)  05:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete: There were some other claims to notability in earlier versions of the article but they were uncited and uncertain. Delete: unnotable.Babakathy (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This person may well be notable. There are various articles about him and his shops in the Memphis press which also give consistent versions of his "notable" activities both before-Memphis and whilst in-Memphis. However, it seems impossible to find any independent supporting evidence of this, or even evidence of his existence prior to his arrival in Memphis! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Lots of plausible claims, but no independent evidence of notability. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Had the earlier claims been sourced, I might feel differently. However, nothing is there now that indicates that this person is notable. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Some of the earlier claims are definitely false, for example the claim here that a conviction under the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) carries a mandatory death sentence. Babakathy (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete: I don't see anything here asserted that would make him actually notable--whether or not he wanted to be included. DGG (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is a very passionate anonymous editor harassing me who will no doubt blame me when the article is deleted. I can live with that, but maybe someone else wants to educate this person on the AfD process while they still have the opportunity to contribute? (Yes, you're right, I'm not going to do it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The bizarre part is that the anonymous editor who is passionate about keeping the article uses the same IP as (presumably) someone else who says he is the Subject (ie Mafa) and has repeartedly blanked the article and asked for it and everything to do with it to be deleted. I can only assume it is two different editors using the same IP... I put a link on the talk page for the IP to the discussion here so they can follow if they want. Babakathy (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Even more bizarre is that so-called-D-Mafa claims to be in Memphis, whereas-so-called-Mcmillan claims to be in DC, yet they are both using the same IP address. I wouldn't have thought that was physically possible? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that the passionate anon has now branched out into sock puppetry and has got himself blocked. So it doesn't look like he's going to get the chance to say anything here, which is sad, because although he has no idea what he's doing, and refuses to pay any attention to anyone trying to help him, he actually has some valid points.
 * I expect that it's completely unacceptable for me to vote for him, so I'll just summarise the intent of what I think he might say if he bothered to find out how wikipedia worked and stopped insulting people. I believe he would vote keep, and would say something like: "D Mafa is a very able and intelligent person, and has done some very impressive things in three fields: in the scientific field, he has created some inventions which have improved public health in Zimbabwe; he has worked as a medical professional improving public health in Zimbabwe, and; he has been politically active opposing Mugabe's regime." Sadly, he refuses to respond to requests for evidence of this, and refuses to acquaint himself with WP's requirements, so I am not in a position to to confirm (or deny) these claims, but I can tell you the anon is passionate about them!
 * In any case, given that there are four people (including me) saying: "There is no evidence that this person is notable", until there is some evidence, the above is irrelevant. I just feel it would be irresponsible of us if we closed this "discussion" without mentioning this person's unverified (and, it would seem, unverifiable) claims.


 * So, having got that off my chest, I now have a clear conscience and feel comfortable in saying: It seems quite clear that there is no evidence that this person is notable. Why is this debate still open? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AfDs are usually kept open for five days to elicit a decent amount of community opinion. Glass  Cobra  14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

Delete fails WP:BIO  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Anonymous editor 69.143.57.71 did actually post the below text to Articles for deletion, but it was reverted as vandalism as it was posted in the wrong place:
 * this article should not be deleted. The people who have listed it are anti-rhodes scholars. the valitdity of the request have been vouched for by three or so different independent individuals. - McMillan
 * The original post is here. Inserted for completeness by Babakathy (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2008 (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.