Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda


 * 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 deleted per G7 (again) and article SALTed. Mziboy can draft the article in his userspace while he remains unsure of whether he wants it to stay or go. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken Sibanda

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTE. Of the references provided, none seem to be substantial. The best source seems to be a book review from Euro Weekly, but even this is very weak, barely mentioning the author. The headline "Local Writer Writes Science Fiction Novel" from an unnamed publication is fairly indicative of the level of note I can see. Daniel 21:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep: The fact that this is one of a few black authors writing science fiction qualifies under wikipedia criteria. I disagree with the note on references; these references are from the States and Spain. lease read the article first before complaing --- the reviwer at Ero weekly is mentioned by name and her name is June Arch. Thank you. --Mziboy (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Sources seem to be passing mentions or unreliable, per WP:RS; biographies are all from user-generated content. In the interests of transparency, there appears to be evidence that Mziboy, the creator of this article, has a conflict of interest on this topic. He also created the article on Euro Weekly, the only source that seems to be worth anything (and even then, the source is not about the subject of the article). Yunshui (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Against the argument that Sibanda's work is notable because of his ethnicity, I note that the infobox on his page lists his nationality as South African/American. His professional career appears to have largely taken place in the States. This book was published, again, according to its infobox, in the States. There are a fair few authors who might disagree with the claim that his work is unique... Yunshui (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE as mentioned above. Flimsy sources and certainly not notable currently regardless of his country of birth/origin/residence, or his ethnicity. Heywoodg   talk  21:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -My dear friend Hegwood from England, I am glad you could join us with the same maccabbean insults and a hint of the melodramatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment In the interest of transparency. 1. I have no relationship with any sources. 2. Aritcles are all original source material. 2. Yunshu, and Hedwoog, don't delete this comment as it pertains to a rebuttal of misleading information in a another deletion discussion. 3. I have never worked for any of the sources cited. Again lets play fair or just delete the article if it means this much to you. I am deleting the commenting by Yanshu as it is false and misleading.

--Mziboy (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)-
 * Mziboy, you can't strike other people's comments just because you disagree with them. I struck your second keep vote as you may only vote once.  No one has accused you of working for the sources used in the article, but you do clearly have a conflict of interest. -- Daniel  23:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Daniel: I don't have a conflict of interest! Please show me credible evidence and prove your case. I will be the first to say delete the articles. Thank you.--Mziboy (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You sent me an email from the subject's film company. -- Daniel 23:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Daniel: I did no such thing, lets see the forgery! let me see it. Thank you and God bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 23:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. There is no way it is a forgery.  It was sent from your Wikipedia account through proteusfilm.com via Wikimedia.  Then you sent me another email telling me delete the article if I "believed my comments" and saying that you would pray for me.  What kind of "proof" do you want? -- Daniel  23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * '''The COI discussion, while a valid concern, doesn't really have anything to do with whether this article should be deleted. Mziboy seems to have given permission above for DJL to repost the email he received, maybe we can do that at the COI page. For now though Mziboy, the only issue on this page is whether or not the subject is notable enough for an article. Dayewalker (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me see it, complete rubbish! If you feel that strong about my neutrality then delete teh articles. there is a paper trial for all this. I am sure the media and other outlets would be interested in seeing how wikipedia really operates!!!!! Thank you--Mziboy (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The kind of evidence where Daniel is not both judge, jury and advocate!!

I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me see it, complete rubbish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the screen shot from my email . We are done here. -- Daniel 00:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete forgery. Rubbish dude!--Mziboy (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly you are so off base it is painful. It wouldn't mean your article would be deleted if you have a conflict of interest, you can admit to a conflict of interest and still edit Wikipedia, plenty of people do this, read WP:COI.  This article is likely to be deleted because of a lack of good sources, not because you have a conflict of interest. I have no motive to forge anything.  You are making yourself look very silly by sending me emails from proteusfilms.com calling me a liar. -- Daniel  00:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, I received an abusive email (via Wikipedia) from the same domain/user so can vouch for Daniel's statement. Heywoodg   talk  15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I received an email from proteusfilms.com/Mziboy saying that the laptop they are using once belonged to someone who worked at Proteus Films, but they themselves do not. This of course doesn't hold any water as the Mziboy account was created on Sept. 27th 2011.  You can't activate the email function without access to the email account it will use.  All this is really besides the point, the article fails the notability criteria and Mziboy's accusations of racism and forgery are simply ridiculous. -- Daniel  15:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As nominator. Fails WP:N. -- Daniel  15:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources that establish WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - self-published author (his latest book is published by a division of his own film company) of questionable notability. Google search on the name shows only 238 unique results, mainly social media, blogs, or user generated sites. Hardly any significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, and either salt the article or block the article creator. This little end-around to subvert the deletion process is tiresome. Dayewalker (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete subject has not achieved notice worthy of inclusion. Coverage of the subject is mostly social media and personal web sites --- fails WP:N, and WP:CREATIVE. The creator of this article appears to have conflict of interest issues and disruptive editing issues that may need to be addressed.  Steve Quinn (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It would be nice if the screen shot was still on Flickr, though (see my flickrmail).  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   02:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Why Article was written The Ken Sibanda article is not intended as a suggestion that the man is famous, far from that. It is intended as a historic record of a notable phenomenon or emergence for future reference. Wikipedia's purpose is to synchronize notable facts into a human narrative and not to merely ignore notable trends because the trend is not yet famous. Forgive me if I am wrong but we live in an age of famous reality stars who are according to Wikipedia, "famous for being famous." The fact that Ken Sibanda is doing something and not yet famous does not take away from his contribution or notability nor the context in which he is emerging!--Mziboy (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:OR.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   02:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may also wish to review WP:NOTE: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons (emphasis mine). Yunshui (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep

I disagree with all the above deletes. Seems to me like we dont have many African born science fiction writers and wikipedia needs to footnote this for future reference. In addition; some of the greatest works were self-publsihed, including "War and Peace." Some might even argue that wikipedia is self published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.62 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — 209.212.28.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2011 (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.