Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juma Hassan Killimbah


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. No clear consensus. AfD was opened by a blocked sock. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 04:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Juma Hassan Killimbah

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

The article only has one reference listed, which is the link to a CV on the Paraliament of Tanzania's website. Wikipedia’s guidelines recommend providing multiple, reliable sources to ensure WP:VERIFY.

The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because the article does not provide enough information to establish the notability of Juma Hassan Killimbah (according to wikipedias standards).

From what i’ve seen, Wikipedia guidelines for “biographies of living persons” require that the information must be “verifiable and neutrally presented, with an emphasis on high-quality secondary sources.” The article lacks sufficient biographical information and references to MEET these guidelines. Geko72290 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: No coverage found in Gnews or newspapers. A general Gsearch only brings up non-RS or what look like blog sites. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Africa.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Parliament of Tanzania. His WP:COMMONNAME seems to exclude his middle name, as I was able to find several sources without it (ex. (paywalled)). Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will further add that, per, only around 50% of Tanzania's population has access to the internet, so more in-depth sources are likely to be offline. The article's present sources provide enough of a baseline to surpass WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To reiterate a point I made below, part of the purpose of . Curbon7 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment A member of a national parliament would normally meet WP:NPOL. At the same time, this article does not say much other than he was a member of parliament. If it can't be improved by reliable sources that cover Tanzanian politics, then it probably should be redirected to List of Tanzania National Assembly members 2005–2010. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is enough here now that I'd keep it instead of redirecting. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep having satisfied the subject's status, per NPOL, overwhelming community consensus that members of national parliaments have presumed notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b - I would have speedy closed this because of the socking, but your delete !vote takes precedence - are you willing to reconsider given WP:NPOL and recent additions? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The two above are paywalled, I'll take a look using the common name as suggested. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added one already to the article, it's viewable via archive.org, the other appears not to be. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does meet NPOL, but there is no sourcing to be found. I tried "Juma Killimbah site:.tz", only hits are on legal decisions and the Parliament of Tanzania website. I can't vote !keep, I'd be ok if it was sent to draft to help find more sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding NPOL's provisions for presumed notability, multiple sources have been added to the article now. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I still don't consider the sources added as significant. "X is a politician" seems to be the extent; no sources about the person, only confirmation they hold the post. My !vote above seems to stand, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Tanzania National Assembly members 2005–2010: WP:BLP policy clearly takes precedence over NPOL SNG, so NPOL does not apply to this article, WP:BLP requires strong sourcing. None of the sources above or in article meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. There is a good redirect target and it can be split out if sources are found.  // Timothy :: talk  20:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This really seems like a stretch. BLP is fully met, as all the content in the article is fully sourced. This is not a WP:NOPAGE scenario as if it were just a list of elected positions he has had, as the article also includes actions he has done. WP:NPOL gives presumptive notability in part for articles like this, where offline sources are guaranteed to exist but aren't digitized or accessible online. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment somewhat flummoxed by statements above. First, all sources presently in the article are independent, while the parliament of Tanzania source can be considered WP:PRIMARY, it is still independent. Second, "strong sourcing" is not a phrase mentioned anywhere in WP:BLP; is there any reason to indicate that the sources presently in the article are not reliable? Third, nowhere in WP:BLP is there any indication regarding the necessary length of an article - there are no prohibitions against the creation of stubs. Fourth, there is nothing remotely contentious in the article about the subject. Fifth, NPOL (and NPROF) sit somewhat separate from the SNGs/GNG in that they accord notability on the basis of different criteria - precisely because of the scale and inherent powers of parliamentarians, they are going to be notable.  Does that mean a 14th Century member of the English parliament of whom we only know a name of should have a separate article? Most likely not.  But here we have a politican who it is more than reasonable to assume, given the time and location, that there is further offline sourcing. Sixth, we have overwhelming community consensus that national parliamentarians are presumed notable. Seveth, there is no "trumping" of BLP over NPOL - there's no contradictions between the two. BLP governs content, NPOL provides criteria for notability, they serve different purposes.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2023 (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.