Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandla Lamba


 * 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 keep. There is a consensus in the discussion that the subject is notable. However, I would caution anyone contributing to the article to be aware of WP:BLPCRIME's guidance about material that relates to alleged crimes for which there is not yet a conviction. Participants at the BLP Noticeboard may be able to assist with controversial material. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Mandla Lamba

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

ceo of a non-notable company and he himself is not notable as a business person, lacking true in depth coverage. most of the sources are either mill, unreliable or press releases (or press releases masquerading as journalism) PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/keep I was going to vote delete but it looks like there’s sustained coverage in RS dating back at least a decade on him . My feeling is that he meets WP:GNG, but not for the reasons stated in the article as currently written. Park3r (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep per User:Park3r, the reason stated is absolutely huge to let the article stand worth encyclopedic, as per as the reference stated are concern. An@ss_koko(speak up) 13:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep He has numerous media coverage in notable south African newspapers as seen and mentioned by some editors. So, there is an evidence of notability associated with him. Gingie11 (talk) 15:36, 05 July 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are independent - they're all quoting him briefly or interviews/press releases. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you examine the sources I added above, they describe his activities in a negative light, and are new articles from WP:RS. 20:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Park3r (talk • contribs)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  14:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify (again) and require overhaul based on reliable sources. Is this person notable? Per RS found by Park3r, answer is yes, he meets WP:GNG, but not for the reasons stated in the article as currently written which paints a fairly innocuous picture relying on unreliable sources, omitting negative coverage contained within a couple of those. Need to be wary of COI here. I understand the reflexive keep votes due to GNG being met, but this article is far from complete until material is added, backed by reliable sources, giving due weight to past reporting on (alleged? proven?) fraud and culpable homicide conviction. Since article is fairly new, send it back to draftspace and monitor to ensure it doesn't get moved back out again before the glaring omissions have been addressed. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCLEANUP. If the subject is notable, the article should be kept. Park3r (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ATD-I: Draftification is a valid alternative to deletion which this article is eligible for, being <90 days old. This will allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. Citing WP:NOTCLEANUP is a flawed argument; it states (emphasis mine) articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet — but I am not advocating deletion here. I am calling attention to the fact that there is an option for a more nuanced and useful resolution than a knee-jerk keep, and we should avail ourselves of it. This page has been draftified before but got moved back into mainspace prematurely. Now, we can WP:DRAFTIFY via AfD which provides a link back to the discussion here, documenting the issues that need to be addressed before AfC process accepts and promotes the article back. For me, that is a much better alternative than leaving the article in mainspace after having slapped a bunch of cleanup templates on it but leaving no clear, easily-followed trail back to this discussion. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - is notable. Mathmo Talk 15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: SOFIXedIT using the sources found by Park3r, because apparently ATD-I isn't very credible. All personal information removed for lack of reliable sourcing, getting verified facts will be difficult given the subject's history of making false claims. Had trouble finding information about outcome for fraud charges; Park3r perhaps you may be able to find something with the benefit of your local knowledge? — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a completely different article than the brief stub nominated for deletion in June. It's no longer a promotional ad for a businessman, I imagine he would actually prefer this article to be deleted now that his frauds and scams are detailed and referenced correctly. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable as a fraudster. When reliable sources start reporting on other reliable sources investigations to expose the subject's skeletons that he may have in the closet, I think not only subject is notable but the newspaper investigations of the subject are notable, too. But could be draftified until reviewed via AfC. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment about editing behaviour - Given that notability is established. There appears to be some sort of subtle edit war going on with this article.I observe that immediately after creation, this article was, reasonably, moved to draft space by the nominator. Only 20 days later, the article was moved back to article space, by a relatively new user, without going through an Articles for creation review. Also, editors are not attempting to achieve a consensus of what this article is about as there is no talk page discussion about reverted edits. At least one user has been blocked due to their editing behaviour in relation to this article. There now appears to be a revert war developing between the page mover, who appears to be protecting the article from changes, and an anonymous editor who has challenged this. Consequently, I suggest this article be redraftified and have move protection applied until the article goes through an AfC review. If and when the article is retained in, or moved back to, article space then Extended confirmed protection should be applied. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your observations. My involvement in this article is thus: I stumbled across it here at AfD and noted the disparity between and the reliable sources that had been turned up. As you can see above, I did not consider it ready for mainspace. However, there did not seem to be any appetite for draftification, so I decided to bite the bullet and do a rewrite so that the article would be worthy of a keep outcome. After submitting my, I was startled to see it nestled in between undo edits by Gingie11. Rather than acting in the heat of the moment, I chose to go off for a meal break and do some other things (that was the original plan anyway). By the time I returned, Gingie11 had already been blocked for disruptive editing after edit warring with patrollers, so I picked up the pieces and continued working. I was preparing to submit  when "Show preview" and "Show changes" started giving strange output; this coincided with Lamini's three undos. I was not aware at the time that they were the "page mover" and simply followed the example of patrollers before me to revert what seemed like simple vandalism at the time, then posted the relevant uw template to user's talkpage. I have no intention of edit warring and would be willing to work on reaching consensus on legitimate issues; would also welcome assistance from experienced editors to scrutinize with regard to WP:BLPCRIME. However, seeing that Gingie11 seems to prefer the whitewashed version of the article, one wonders if this could be a case of An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. At this point I would oppose draftification — what would be the point of putting this through AfC now? The subject has been established to be notable and the article is now properly supported by reliable sources. If there are legitimate content disputes, there is no impediment to sorting that out in mainspace. As for page protection, admins should do what they feel is necessary; I'll just note that any protection higher than pending changes would be an inconvenience for me, but it's not a big deal, the rewriting is pretty much done and others can take care of the maintenance. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To address Cameron Dewe's concerns re: consensus, the other users have been invited to the talkpage. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, everyone who was reverting to the old version was a sockpuppet, and I've blocked the lot. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps not notable as a businessperson, but definitely notable as a fraudster. Edwardx (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqota (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)  — Mqota (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE? SHB2000 (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2022 (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.