Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. After discarding the SPA/canvassed/sock votes, we're left without consensus either way. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality
AfDs for this article:


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

Self published book by an author who has paid many editors for his and its inclusion in Wikipedia. Fails WP:NBOOK, this is WP:ADMASQ and part of a walled garden of self promotion. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete : no coverage and fails WP:42. Not to mention what is mentioned in the nom which may require WP:SALT ..FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Refer to: Don't cite WP42 at AfD and Checkout 1, 2,3 and 4 among others
 * 217.165.5.17 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) — 217.165.5.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. To start with, this is a self-promotional article about a self-promotional self-published book and should be rewritten to address this tone. But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and this book passes criterion 4 of WP:NBOOK, which states "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]." According to reliable sources (the Monitor, a legitimate and reliable Ugandan news outlet, plus PML Daily), Uganda's government agency overseeing curriculum adopted the book as part of its secondary school curriculum and thus made it a "subject of instruction." And according to NBOOK, satisfying one of these criteria overcomes concerns about self-publication. (While criterion 4 is dispositive, I also think we need to be careful about overturning a prior "Keep" AfD decision without a clear statement from the nominator about why that discussion was flawed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep without abandoning WP:BEFORE, this book has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum,  where there is promotion, I recommend cleanup. Regarding Paid Edits, there are necessary Disclosures on the talk page already.
 * Comment This article was already nominated for deletion before in 2020 and the result was Keep. The very nominator here was part of the discussion contributors. I have also established that it is the very nominator who actually started the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton. and he has a rare special biased/negative interest against the project, the author as he keeps reffereing to that everytime he wants something bad to be done to the (or revert/delete) authors wikipedia works. He appears to smartly resist any updates to the author and his global contributions, potentially aiming to frustrate other contributors, by labeling every editor of this author as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) disregarding the fact that all contributions are collaborative efforts.
 * The nominator acts as if he owns Wikipedia content through determining what should be written and not written about him or according to his wish, he's hence abusing and misusing; in guise, several Wiki policies and contradicting the principles outlined in Wikipedia's Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). I am therefore convinced and I believe beyond reasonable doubt that this nomination was selfishly made in bad faith against the Wikipedia foundation Mission, Purpose and Terms of Use including Assume good faith and deliberately violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies 217.165.5.17 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) — 217.165.5.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep in accordance with the available reliable sources (WP:RS) and the criteria outlined in Book Sources (WP:BOOKCRIT), as the references meet the required standards for accuracy, credibility, and editorial quality.2A00:F28:486:3B8:2863:3750:DBB2:7C3F (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC) — 2A00:F28:486:3B8:2863:3750:DBB2:7C3F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The Article Already passed an AFD with a "Keep" Result implying community consensus for its notability. Since then, no paid editors have contributed; all edits have been from independent editors part of whom contributed to the Article's first ADF consensus. The Edit history show the article having been improved by experienced and non conflicted editors ensuring compliance with Wikioedia's standards. The WP:ADMASQ claim is unfounded based on the current content.The nominator's motivations should not influence the deletion discussion.5.31.71.51 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC) — 5.31.71.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. I stand by my keep !vote above on policy grounds but I think the flurry of IP SPAs who showed up need to be disregarded. Would love to see more perspectives from some uninvolved regulars at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm unsure if Uganda has the same paid for media coverage problems as India and Nigeria, so evaluating the sources is kind of difficult here as I am not familiar with many of the publications. IMO, the schooling thing mentioned above helps it be pushed over to keep, and most of the sources look okay for notability - though some appear unduly promotional and perhaps tied to the author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting, first, Amazon reviews are not important, secondly, I'd like to hear from some of our AFD regulars instead of new IP editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Basing on the fact that was adopted by the Ugandan Ministry of Education through its NCDC and recommended for use in Secondary and higher institutions of Learning, It got an award though this is only talked about in Uganda, I find many substantial postive reviews on Amazon and I find many references linking to several libraries for schools and Universities in Uganda.102.85.51.233 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — 102.85.51.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Hamis Kiggundu: Coverage I can find is only about the individual, nothing about his book. I'd redirect or merge a few lines into his article there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep The book should be retained due to its significant educational impact and recognition. The book has been independently reviewed and praised for its valuable insights on success and the importance of having a sense of purpose, as detailed in Eagle. Additionally, it has been recognized in Ugandan media, with Bukedde highlighting its influence. Moreover, the book won the "Business Book of the Year" award, as reported by Newslex Point. This recognition and its adoption by the National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC) for secondary school curriculum demonstrate its educational value and relevance, satisfying the requirements of WP:NBOOK. -- Macholi (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2024 (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.