Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phindiwe Sangweni


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Phindiwe Sangweni

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article lacks notability as described in [Wikipedia:N]. There appears to be insignificant coverage of this person. The links provided are not notable in themselves. The article is an orphan. This appears to be a case of self-promotion GetDownAdam (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability not established by the article, nor could I find any other sources that would establish notability. The first source - Legalbrief - mentions her appointment as Director of the ConCourt, but nothing more; the second (the Zulu PDF) only mentions her name as a translator, and I really don't know why it's included at all; and the third is a Who's Who entry. To avoid confusion, the position of "Director of the Constitutional Court" is not a judicial position, it is a civil service position; basically, the Director performs administrative duties delegated by the Chief Justice. There are hundreds of people at "Director" rank in the South African civil service - it is not inherently notable. - htonl (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am changing from Neutral to Keep - It can not hurt to keep pending more references and hopefully more data. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Neutral  - It is interesting that material, including portions that were removed from article in question before being nominated for deletion by the same person for cleanup purposes. See Phindiwe Sangweni&action=history.

And the sources once included before trimming:
 * 1.^ "Constitutional Court Director retires". Legalbrief Today. JUTA Law. 2007. http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=2002060458339999. Retrieved January 1, 2011.
 * 2.^ "The National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa". The National Prosecuting Authority. 2008. http://www.npa.gov.za/UploadedFiles/NPA_zul.pdf. Retrieved January 1, 2011.
 * 3.^ a b c d e f g "HRH Princess Phindiwe Dlamini-Sangweni". Who's Who - Southern Africa. whoswhosa.co.za. 2010. http://www.whoswhosa.co.za/phindiwe-dlamini-sangweni-36328. Retrieved January 1, 2011.
 * 4.^ Spies, WIllie (2005). "Pretoria community celebrates 150 years themselves". vryheidsfront.co.za. http://www.vryheidsfront.co.za/english/media.asp?language=e&offset=810&id=1215. Retrieved January 1, 2011.

While the person is not very interesting and the article is only a stub and has problems as noted previously, can it be saved? Is "Who's Who - Southern Africa" equal to "Who's Who" in America for notability? If "Who's Who" in America is acceptable for Wikipedia notability, why not "Whos's Who - Southern Africa?" Has there been a decision on Wikipedia on which "Who's Who" is notable and which is not?

I agree that "There are hundreds of people at "Director" rank in the South African civil service - it is not inherently notable." - but being the first "Black" in that position once all white - not notable? Curious. Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Three of those sources are the same three I referred to in my original comment; the fourth only mentions her in passing as assistant to the mayor of Pretoria. As to being the first black person in that position, it's not quite as notable as it sounds - she was in fact the second director of the ConCourt ever; it's only existed since 1995. But, in general, I do not think that being the first black or female person in a particular position makes a person notable if the position was not already notable. - htonl (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't consider listing in "Who's Who" to be a significant factor with regard to notability, at least not in America. See this article about "Who's Who in America" for why. If someone listed in a "Who's Who" publication is truly notable, there should be other, more credible sources to establish that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I had heard of her previously, as she testified at the Congressional "Traditional Leadership" briefing hosted by U.S. Congresswoman Diane Watson on Capitol Hill in October 2010, along with Prince Ermias of Ethiopia and other African royalty. Some evidence of her notability seems to be minimised in the article for unknown reasons, and the information provided seems substantial enough to justify the coverage here. "Firsts" by women and blacks in South Africa's government certainly can be notable ipso facto, and it's not clear this isn't a good example of that. More should be added rather than the article being deleted. FactStraight (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: That's interesting and I would agree with you if there was more information. Do you have a link to her testimony at this briefing? Also, there's two ways of looking at the evidence of her notability. You say that evidence of her notability has been minimised, but is it possible that the evidence is not there. Perhaps I should also clarify my position on the notability of royals. In Southern Africa, there is a rather large sector of the population that can find a close connection to a royal family. There are many royal families. In that sense, the mere fact of being royal is not notable. In terms of firsts by women and black people, I have to agree with htonl. The Constitutional Court is a post-Apartheid body. Race and sex have very little to do with appointment. From what I can understand from the web, this person is just a normal citizen who happens to work in government departments and is incidentally also a member of a royal family. Nothing notable. GetDownAdam (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - the article needs more references, like the material given by FactStraight above. As FactStraight says, this article is not a good example of "Firsts" by women and blacks in South Africa's government. Keep and improve. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:02, 7 May 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.