Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machel Waikenda


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Machel Waikenda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was forbidden when created, and is still forbidden today, per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

Article was first created by a man who is a secret paid advocate (a bad kind of paid editor) and blocked serial sockpuppeteer. It was then speedily deleted. The subject of the biography, Mr. Waikenda himself, said he'd pay to get it back. Freelancer.com user Sourov00 requested undeletion; the article was undeleted.

Despite Mr. Sourov's edits, the article is still promotional.

I have not checked to see whether or not there exists SIGCOV regarding Mr. Waikenda in RSes.

Dear Mr. Waikenda: Please stop paying people to write autobiographies of you on Wikipedia. It can backfire upon you badly: see User:Durova/The dark side. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)




 * There's some legitimate sourcing here. The article has a promotional tone, yes, but not to a G11 degree. Could the nominator explain more why the article should be deleted, with more comment on the content rather than the contributors? --BDD (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear


 * A) If a promotional article meets G11, we can speedily delete it. But, even if it doesn't meet G11, we can still delete it anyway. Even though this article doesn't meet WP:G11, I propose that it is still forbidden due to WP:NOT. And see Deletion policy, which mentions WP:NOT.


 * B) We cannot consider only the content: we must also consider the contributors. As it says in Deuteronomy, "... a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise". Since this article was written by paid advocates, we must assume that &mdash; if any negative information about Mr. Waikenda exists &mdash; the writers have ignored it.


 * I think it is better not to leave a paid advocacy piece sitting live in mainspace &mdash; especially if it fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION &mdash; unless an unpaid Wikipedian has completed a careful search for negative information.


 * Dear reader:


 * Are you an unpaid Wikipedian willing to remove all promotional material? And are you willing to spend fifteen or twenty minutes looking online to see whether or not any negative information exists? If so, please indicate your intentions below, and let's incubate or userfy the article, in order to give you time to fix it. Otherwise, I still think we should delete the article. Maybe one day a neutral Wikipedian will write a new unbiased article from scratch.


 * Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If a COI editor has made an acceptable article for bad reasons, punish the editor, not readers. You're still referring to WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, such as the article's tone. Can you speak directly to how it doesn't meet notability standards? --BDD (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My tack seems to be failing to convince you. Let me try a different tack. I clicked on the BBC ref, but saw only a passing mention of Mr. Waikenda. I clicked on "This is The Man Who Handles President Uhuru’s FB & Twitter Accounts", but am unconvinced that the source is an RS. I wonder if you could please point out two sources of SIGCOV which actually qualify as RSes? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:54, 2 April 2014 (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.