Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses ka Moyo


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Moses ka Moyo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not finding much to indicate this person is notable; charitable intentions don't obviate the need to demonstrate notability The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Did you attempt a search for sources, or just type this in agreement? The essay cited above in the nomination isn't a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Perhaps you just agree with the essay? Please expound upon your rationale to delete this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems like the subject has been involved in several projects - and, thus, if there were coverage of these projects that focused on the subject's involvement, then an article might be appropriate. But as it stands, I can't find the sources we'd need for such an article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I found some reliable sources, see below. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This source, for one, goes some way towards demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * and here's an archive copy of one of the sources that was removed from the article just before it was nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note the addition of more reliable sources to this article, and the existence of them. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per WP:BASIC, several sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Added to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage has been found. Clicking the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD finds a lot in one source, including this one  which clearly establishes the person, he getting coverage for his activities.   D r e a m Focus  14:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per rescue work by User:Northamerica1000. I'd like to see more diversity of sourcing, but the links added certainly establish verifiability and GNG. Based on the large number of online links, I believe we can presume more offline sources are available. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Added to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bleh. Typical case of marginal notability. I can't make up my mind here because I'm having difficulty assessing the reliability of Independent Online News. I don't see an editorial board, or clear indications of fact-checking, yet it claims to be a brand that owns several regional newspapers, and claims to belong to certain journalist best-practices groups. If I exclude ION then I think this has to be a delete; with it I would make it a keep. I didn't find ION in a somewhat cursory look in the WP:RS/N archives. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Independent Online isn't "a brand that owns several regional newspapers", but the web site of several of South Africa's most respected national and regional newspapers owned by Independent News & Media. There is no more reason to doubt its reliability than that of The New York Times or the BBC. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was looking to close this, but my opinion is that the sources (which appear acceptable, as the website is part of Independent News & Media and the archived source is from the local authority) do not deal with Moses ka Moyo, but with an incident of which he is a part. The news sources are dealing with a news event. And the local authority source is dealing with Friends of the Inner City. If the event is notable, we should be covering the event, not a person who is a part of that event. And if the event is not notable, then the person is clearly not notable. If Friends of the Inner City is notable, we should have an article on that. However, these views are not given in the discussion, and people are !voting to keep because Moses ka Moyo's name keeps appearing in the sources. I cannot close as delete as that would be a supervote, and I can't in good conscience close this as either a keep or a no consensus because the article doesn't appear to meet our inclusion criteria.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned as a community leader, and they mention his activities for various things over the years. Look at the date of the news sources found.  He gets continual coverage, not just for one invent.   D r e a m Focus  19:08, 30 December 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.