Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nzamba Kitonga


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 12:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nzamba Kitonga

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable local politician. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Edwardx (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm leaning towards "keep", however, I'm interested in what others have to say. Various sources state that he was chairman of the committee that drafted the Kenyan Constitution (e.g. ) which sounds like a big deal to me. -Location (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the article can be reliably sourced to more significant coverage about him than this. Being on the committee that drafted the constitution is indeed the strongest notability claim here, but the source provided above just namechecks his existence in that role and doesn't say anything substantive about his work in that role. And of the sources present in the article, one is a reliable source but not particularly substantive, and the other one (Kenyan Life) reads like a political campaign brochure: from what I can tell, it appears to be the kind of user-generated open platform on which people can freely redistribute their own self-published "coverage" about themselves, which is thus not a source that can be used to assist notability at all. So we need better sourcing than this before we can keep it. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly looks to be a senior enough official for an article, although the sourcing could definitely do with improvement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't keep an article just because improved sourcing might be possible — to earn a keep on inadequate sourcing, it would have to be definitively shown that the sources necessary to improve it do exist, not just asserted that maybe just maybe they might, who knows. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I said it could do with improvement, not that it was non-existent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You said it could do with improvement without showing any actual evidence that such improvement is possible at all. That's what I'm talking about: it's not enough to just assume that maybe the improved sourcing required might exist somewhere, but rather to get it kept on that basis you would need to actually show evidence that the improved sourcing required does exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 02:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient coverage exists to establish notability:      . CJK09 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with CJK09 on sources. Agree that current state of sourcing in article is lame, but that really doesn't matter.L3X1 (distænt write)  19:09, 27 August 2017 (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.