Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamis Kiggundu


 * 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   move to draft. This article was created by a paid editor and so is required to go through articles for creation. As this did not happen, the article has been returned to draft space and requires AfC approval prior to any move back to mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hamis Kiggundu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This should really be a G11 speedy, however the author seems convinced this belongs in article space without engaging in dialogue and accepting the AfC process. The subject of the article is potentially notable - but it needs substantial work (and probably time) to remove promotional puffery and identify reliable sources to verify most of the statements of about his life. The sources are an array of mere business listing sites, mentions in passing and questionable news outlets (some of which my defenses show bearing malware...). There are some unanswered COI concerns as the author seems to have embarked on creating an array of articles about this person, his business interests and some family members. Some family facts are not mentioned in any sources... they must have come from somehwere. There are a few rejected/deleted AfCs at Draft:Hamis Kiggundu., Draft:Ham Palm Villas and Draft:Hamis Kiggundu. Therefore, propose to delete (WP:TNT). pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 *  Keep DeleteNeutralDraftify (revised my opinion. See comment below) (and once more) (and again) (see after the (first) re-list. I am striking all the comments I made before that. After some thought I fall back on the fact that the gentleman has notability despite your wise and accurate comments on the references. I consider that the references need a great deal of tidying, paring down, and filtering for quality .  Fiddle   Faddle  10:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from. This is a borderline call. It is probably easy enough to reduce the article to a minimum viable stub. However, I refuse to edit/improve articles that have the slightest whiff of COI/PAID as this would mean that I use my volunteer time for someone else to get paid. Call me weird, I would much rather see this nuked and then I'd write a stub from scratch - with the illusion that payment may then be withheld.... pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also have no intention of working in this borderline article. The rationale for my opinion on keeping is very thin indeed, but I interpret WP policy as driving my !vote. I appreciate that I may be incorrect. I have flagged it for work on the referencing assuming it is kept. Fiddle   Faddle  11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have revised my opinion. I have seen so many articles around this gentleman created by the same editor that I suspect a paid campaign (broadly construed) to create notability surrounding him. I have placed a warning in the creators talk page to that effect. I have abided by WP:AGF and considered this carefully.  If the gentleman is notable let someone else create the article(s).  Fiddle   Faddle  11:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor has left a clear explanation on their talk page. I no longer suspect paid editorship. Fiddle  Faddle  19:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Justifying my final(!) !vote, I feel that there is sufficient potential in this article to put it into Draft: space for a major edit. It needs to be slimmed down. A great number if Wikilinks need to go. Irrelevant 'references' must go. The creating editor needs time to work on this without being under the time pressure of AfD. Fiddle   Faddle  20:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have a draft at Draft:Hamis Kiggundu.. Not sure what a second draft would accomplish. The article space version could be merged into it so we maintain the history. AfC would have to be strictly adhered by before moving back. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with that outcome. I hadn't noticed/remembered there was a drat waiting in the wings Fiddle   Faddle  06:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment (article author). Hello My Seniors Here: Jake Brockman ,Faddle i have a very big Challenge here, I am a Web designer and Content creator, i have been working on some of the websites for this gentleman Hamis Kiggundu through some agencies. In fact i have very many companies and prominent businessmen and Ugandan Government officials projects i have been working on. However, after checking on Wikipedia, i could not find any information or pages regarding them, apart from a mention which found in the page for Nakivubo Stadium about Hamis Kiggundu which just had (Ham Kiggundu) but without any citations and confirmation external links, i got information from google and other sources then consequently did the necessary editing (Citation and External links) though i saw it was since cleaned by User:Jake Brockman. I was also guided somewhere to avoid indicating the financial/ monetary net worth by one of you on some article List of Ugandans by net worth which i have since understood.


 * Now the only challenge is that the pictures i use here( Wiki Commons) are some of the very Pictures that i use when putting up their sites, the are raw files are always very very heavy and in a diff format: i work on them then generate jpeg/jpg and png formats which i always customize for my personal, some i find the downloaded and reused in the press, but i don't find it offensive given the fact that they always work for the benefit of my third party customers, most of who i have never even met personal.  Now you have tagged them for deleting at wiki commons, and i believe at the end of the day i will be flagged or blocked perhaps something worse.    i really have many articles for companies, government officials and other business people which i have and ready to work on, some i was still gathering enough information for citations and external links. But i am now frustrated. I was thinking that when these articles are here without any conflict, i have a way of benefiting in future, Now, look at this guys articles, that i have been trying to make. For sure i have tried to do the needful every time  i find a notification, the last edits i made, it tried my best to put as many citations as is could, perhaps even if you make a search about him. This is a 36 year old kid with properties around the city center of Kampala, the Guy is working on a mass Agro Processing project of about $200M, He is already having 500 villas with each going for about $500,000,  he was factories, an international School, among very many other business, (try to make a search), the guy has even spread to the UK and US, try to check out (375 Moston Lane, ManchesterM40 9NB, England) , that's his property!!!! the guy has a logistic company in Dallas(Ham International Express Logistics LLC) and another one California ,  others in South Africa i failed to get information hence did not write about them. Honestly This guy is Inspiration. I started giving stalking him online after reading his book, and i learnt alot during this lock-down. It is really not fair for you to say that i am paid to write about him, when it is my dream to really meet him. The guys who give me his work have always denied me the opportunity to meet him. Perhaps i can not make more articles when the first one has issues, i won't be serious at all, i have not even made a month on Wiki media and i always come here when less from from my work, but this kind of first experience has really not been good for me, I request that you please check that article and tell me what to correct about it, so that i make others with good experience. Other than this, i can not sign that i am being paid when have never even met any associates and discuss about him. This means that even the other articles I am planning to make will have the same problems, or perhaps if i Insist i will be deleted or blocked.


 * It is my Humble request that your give me guidance towards becoming a better contribute. I wish to be like you one day and i really look forward to working with you here. thank you. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)MarkMark Mulwanyi (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your comprehensive response. Wikipedia editing can – at least at first – be rather complex as there are many rules and guidelines which take time to fully explore. It is a journey, at least that is/was my experience. I don’t want to go into all details; however neutrality and balance are key principles which are driven through rules and guidelines about notability, conflicts of interest and neutrality, to name a few.
 * I take conflicted and/or potentially paid editing very seriously. Wikipedia guidelines state that any conflict or external relationship must be disclosed. Editing and page creation is encouraged through the AfC process and suggestion of edits via talk pages.
 * There are a number of points that don’t add up. In this diff you state that “I do not work for Hamis Kiggundu and never interacted with him personally, However, i have been designing websites for his companies.” On your talk page you consider yourself a social media marketer. just above, you provide further detail and state that your may have worked for Kiggundu through agencies. This may be considered additional detail, it may also be considered contradictory to earlier statements.
 * You certainly seem to have some exclusive access to contents, if you are able to upload pictures from his website with and without background that a "normal" editor would not have.
 * If you have worked for Kiggundu through agencies, this does make you a WP:PAID contributor. Even if you do not do those edits for Kiggundu as part of an assignment today, you still have a strong financial stake: either by way of marketing for your own skills or as some kind of pitch for future work. I can only suggest to make all required disclosures and strictly and transparently follow the process for PAID editors, but ideally stay away from subjects where conflicts may arise, such as this one.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have revised my opinion once more, to be neutral in this discussion. The gentleman of the article is likely to be notable, but I feel I am standing too close to the to have a useful opinion in the deletion discussion. No-one here is your senior. Wikipedia is an assembly of equals who consent to rules and create those rules. I've left you quite a bit of help on your talk page. Most of this should be discussed there.  Note to closing admin I think we can view the creating editor's comment as a !vote to keep the article. They may not yet realise that this is a consensus forming exercise, not a ballot.  Fiddle   Faddle  18:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral verging on delete. This article needs heavy pruning or even WP:TNT. It has the worst case of WP:REFBOMBING I have seen - which AFD participant is going to assess all 75 citations to sift any wheat from the chaff? The Hamis Kiggundu section is pure trivia, about a lawsuit which was filed in February 2020 and hasn't come to court yet. Narky Blert (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been known to check every reference in the past, listing them and making a comment about each. If it survives I may do that. What about pruning the court battle which has not yet come to pass section entirely and taking a new view? Fiddle   Faddle  15:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have migrated the Court Battle section to the article's talk page in the hope that that may help the survival chances of the article Fiddle   Faddle  10:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm learning much and consequently improving. Thinking about completely eliminating that Migrated section. Narky Blert, Thank you very much for your assistance and guidance, Faddle . Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral verging on delete. I'd theoretically like for the article to stay, but if it does, it is in need of some serious editing. The information is disorganized, the prose needs heavy copy editing for grammar and tone, and (as has been addressed) the references are a bit of a mess. That being said, WP:TNT might be in order. Noahfgodard (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Updating my opinion: The more I read about the possibility of paid editing here and the more I think about the current state of the article, the more in favor I am of WP:TNT. Noahfgodard (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Very borderline and leaning to Delete; try one more relist
 * Note I believe that without abandoning WP:BEFORE this  should be *Kept on grounds that: (1)   Noahfgodard, User:RJFJR and many others have done reasonable cleanup, Sofar.  (2)  Hamis Kiggundu apparently has significant press coverage and he is an author of a book which also has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum.   (3)   With guidance from Jake Brockman  ,  Faddle  and other I have Disclosed COI on my talk page, and every created page upon studying and understanding some Wikipedia policies hence i kindly request that you should not consider Deletion is as cleanup please!, Thank you very much. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep on the talk page of this deletion discussion I have performed an analysis for the first six references in the version stated there (permalink quoted). Please visit the talk page here to check my work, perhaps to add your own analysis.
 * A fair summary is that there is sufficient verification of sufficient elements of this article to ensure its being kept. The referencing overall quality, assuming this sample carries forward to al of the references, is 50% worthwhile and 50% poor to very poor. I chose the first six because that gives editors an easy view. I accept that a fuller analysis of all the 56 (current) references may produce a different view.
 * I consider this article passes the criteria for a living person. It requires a substantial cleanup of the wording, the content and the references, but this is not a discussion about cleaning the article up. Fiddle   Faddle  17:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.