Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sibanda[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ken Sibanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been previously deleted by a broad consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda and very little has actually changed that would establish notability. While there are a variety of references used in this article, careful examination will show that few, if any, come from reliable sources. The best fall into the category of local papers publishing stories like "Local Man Writes Novel" or alumni publications publishing the subject's press releases near verbatim. Almost all of the sources and "reviews" are clearly using the same source material of a press release. This article is created by the subject, as established in the previous AfD (this is the reason I'm using an alternate account to post this AfD, there was harassment from the article creator during the prior AfD). Altfish80 (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Article is not created by subject

    Please take the moment to look at each reference before making these statements. Firstly, this is a different article from the one that was deleted. The article sources come from several countries and is not merely from a press release. Much has changed to make the subject notable. In addition the article is written in such a way to show why ken Sibanda should be footnoted in wikipedia. Secondly, it is interesting that you feel that you have to attack this article under a different user name (against wikipedia policy to to do that!). They were issues of racism and bias in the previous deletion forums that were never addressed as well. Thirdly, what is your real user name? This article has been continuously violated by people who hate the subject! They was never any harassment from me when the deletion process took place. This is a lie and a manipulation of Wikipedia policy --- you have continuously sought to bring down this article.

    I am asking for a full investigation into what your primary account name is? Remember wikipedia policy ---you accuse others --- it only draws scrutiny to you! You delete my article using fictitious names, is that not harassment! Thanks, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author of this article has had real trouble understanding our inclusion and sourcing guidelines, and this version of the article shows that. Most of the sources are unreliable (as I previously detailed here), and though Mziboy has attempted to address that by adding better ones, the bulk remain problematic. A larger issue at this point is that there does not appear to be any actual notability here. Sibanda exists. Sibanda wrote books. Sibanda has has some small amount of press releases and news blurbs. Sibanda wrote a couple of articles for periodicals. These things are all verifiable by the sources on the article and by googling. However, despite literally months of work by Mziboy pursuing the matter, there remains no actual assertion or evidence of notability. He doesn't appear to meet any of the guidelines of WP:AUTHOR - does not appear to be "an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors," or "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique," or to have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," or to have had his work "either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." After the months of effort, improvement, source-hunting, etc that have gone into this article, it's apparent to me that it's not from a lack of effort - those criteria simply cannot be met by this topic at this time.

    Meta-comment about the appropriateness of this AfD: Though I have my doubts about the launching of this AfD by someone apparently attempting to evade scrutiny, I can understand why it would feel necessary to do it under a different account. I am the administrator who deleted three versions of this article] previously (though at least two other admins have also deleted versions of this article at various titles), and have been accused of racism and had an attempted arbcom case filed against me in retaliation, so the idea that another user may have been subjected to similar treatment is not farfetched. Also note that Mziboy has accused the filing user here of being my sock, which is not the case. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My searches for reliable sources turned up nothing of interest. Googling for "Ken Sibanda" on Google Books, News and News archives turned up nothing but false positives, a book written by Sibanda, and a review of said book. Sibanda doesn't look notable at this time, and sources present in the article don't seem much better (I haven't scrutunized each and every one, but looking over a few of them, they seem to have problems, with promotional content being prevalent among them). As Fluffernutter (talk · contribs) said, Sibanda appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. While Altfish80 (talk · contribs)'s conduct may be a technical violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, I believe it is at least somewhat understandable, given the controversy present in previous attempts to delete this article. CtP (t • c) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but do not salt. Given the e-publishing revolution quietly taking place, in which it's now possible for an author/filmmaker to become significant without any physical product existing (50 Shades of Grey before the print publishers picked it up being the obvious case), and thus nothing to enter the permanent collections which we usually use as the criterion for significance, at some point Wikipedia is going to need to update the notability guidelines. However, I don't think that at present Sibanda would pass even a loosened guideline. The Return to Gibraltar currently has a Kindle sales rank of 683,006 and a print sales rank of 1,005,661; he has clearly not made any kind of breakthrough yet. However, I can certainly believe that as and when the film is released, it may well acquire some kind of significance; Africa-made SF movies are unusual enough that it may well get genuinely significant coverage in both the SA papers and the specialist SF magazines; once that's the case, it may well mean that Sibanda's other works will take off and he'll become notable in his own right as well as in connection with the film. Mogism (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See note from Courcelles regarding use of alternate account upto this point. GB fan 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree with the issues being raised on sources being unreliable. I have dealt with all the editors comments for inclusion and sourcing. The article includes close to 30 references. In the field of science fiction, he is notable.Mziboy (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep delete I don't really understand the fervour to delete this article and I can only guess it has something to do with the previous AfD discussion. Book sales are surely irrelevant to this discussion. WP:CREATIVE is satisfied if an author has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ...that has been the subject ...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There is clear evidence presented here that The Return to Gibraltar has been reviewed in a number of reliable publications (with editorial oversight). It is also in the process of being made into a film (though uncompleted so far, from what I can tell). The claim that Sibanda is one of very few African writers to write in this genre must also surely count towards his importance? Sure, there are issues with some of the sources used in this article, but the bare essentials of WP:CREATIVE seem to be met. Sionk (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my 'vote', based on the poor quality of some of the 'reviews'. There is currently too much 'smoke and mirrors' based on press releases and self-publication. I'd love to see something unambiguously convincing that Sibanda has been widely noticed and, you never know, if he creates his film with Will Smith in the lead role we can all eat our own words! Sionk (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm... I suppose Sibanda could meet part 3 of CREATIVE. The question now is whether this is enough on its own (CREATIVE: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"), but I must at least admit that this is a good, solid argument. CtP (t • c) 17:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not doubting you, but where are you finding the "reviews in a number of reliable publications"? I've gone through every reference in the article looking for a reason to keep, and the closest I can find is Euro Weekly (a user-created site for British expats). And no, the claim that Sibanda is one of very few African writers to write in this genre has no significance at all in this context, unless reliable sources discuss it—and I can find no sign of this. Mogism (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is few if any of these publications are actual reviews. It is clear that they are regurgitating a press release or synopsis of some kind as most use identical phrasing, including the awkward statement, "...time travel back in time." What we have here fluff pieces based on press releases published by low circulation periodicals, not actual book reviews in publications that review books professionally. Despite Mr. Sabanda's extremely aggressive and at times abusive push to get this article onto Wikipedia, I really wouldn't have a problem with it if the some totality of the evidence didn't point to a complete lack notability. --Altfish80 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can see the same text from the reviews repeated at his biography at The Brecht Forum (also used as a source). It is quite obviously a press release or official synopsis and not a review. --Altfish80 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - This article, in its various forms, keeps turning up like a bad penny, and this version of it is no better sourced than the previous ones. It's either blatant hagiography or self-serving autobiography, but either way it doesn't pass notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would concur with Beyond My Ken that salting the article if it is deleted is a good idea, at least until the film production of Gibraltar is shown to meet WP:NFF (in which case WP:AUTHOR might be met). CtP (t • c) 21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at sixteen of the thirty-two footnotes. Some are innocuous, such as a book review or a bio written by Mr. Sibanda (e.g. FNs 15-18). Others are iffy, such as the alleged review at FN 25 in Black Star News (Nov. 2011) which uses the exact same words as the (Mar. 2011) press release at Do it Yourself Press Release. FN 26 the review in the Gibraltar Magazine is just a blurb, although the author does mention that Ken hasn't visited Gibraltar yet. FN 27 the review in The Olive Press is mostly quotes from the author. It quotes the author The book has been well received. and again quotes the author And it is a good book you can read on the beach, or if you visit the Alhambra.; the writer of the article did not review the book. The article "Five questions for novelist Ken Sibanda" The Desert Sun in FN21 sounds as if it might be more substantial, if not necessarily laudatory, however, access to the document is for pay only. In sum, the book does not seem to have received the reviews that some are basing their keep votes upon. The article seems to be mostly hype, such as in planned movie (albeit disguised hype). I wouldn't necessarily "salt", but I would suggest to those who are interested in Mr. Sibanda that they wait four or five years for better notability before coming back here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I think that all of the foregoing discussion, combined with the deletion-and-recreation history of the article, indicates that this should be scrubbed from Wikipedia and never allowed to exist again. True, there are self-published projects that attain great success, but this person has never been associated with any of them. Whether this is a blatant attempt at self-promotion is, at this point, not really relevant. What matters are the policies for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. I think our course is clear. It's time for this individual and his article to be permanently retired from Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: If the article ends up being kept there should be a WP:HISTMERGE with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda, where this was drafted with the help of several other users before apparently being copy/pasted to article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sibanda appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Also, there are no reliable third-party sources to cover the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They is an accussatory tone here wish I don't like - "the page was created by Sibanda for example!" The page should exist because as noted above Ken Sibanda quailifies under the creative guildelines stated Wiki wikipedia (which must be read by all) - namely that if the person himself is notable - how is the first black man to write a science fiction epic that gained international coverage from Africa not worthy of a wikipedia footnote -- even if the book sucks. This is merely a footnote and as he develops so will the work he is doing. I idea that he has to wait for four years or that he is being treated like a saint is equally ludricous. I also found these other references that everyone is overlooking, why I dont know:
The article by Barbara Holland. (Weekened Post)
The article by Peter Crown (London Connection)
The ARticle that appeared in New York Beacon.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.154.110 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I promise you, we're all aware of the guidelines. As has been explained to you (I assume you're Mziboy), you need to demonstrate not just that he exists, but that he's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nnedi Okorafor, for example, is an African SF writer who undoubtedly meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, as she's won significant awards and has been the subject of significant coverage in her own right. Sibanda doesn't appear to have had any coverage other than reprinted press releases, and we don't cover topics just on the off-chance they'll later become significant. Mogism (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not Mziboy. The person you just mentioned (Nnedi Okorafor) was not born in Africa. That is my point, we don't have our facts correct.I disagree and will respectfully suggest you look at all the news clips. These are individual news pieces. 75.150.154.110 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • !Vote struck out as almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Mziboy, considering that editor's history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What we see here is summed up at Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability and Wikipedia:Bombardment. There is energetic self-promotion going on: as pointed out above, many of these references seem to be press-release based, and many of them are the subject talking about things he is going to do; but we need to look at what he actually has done. As author, that consists of three self-published books - the publisher Proteus Books publishes only his books, and is a subsidiary of his company Proteus Films. As far as film-making goes, it all seems pretty vague: the interviews talk about making a film of Return to Gibraltar, the article says he intends a short film called Species Venus, Proteus Films' website says Hannibal the African is "in pre-production", but again, when we ask what he has done the answer from IMDb is one five-minute short called The Triangle, which you can see here. If some of these planned films actually get made and released and gain critical attention to meet WP:NFILMS, he may acquire notability (though as he and his film company are based in New Jersey, it would be a stretch to call them "Africa-made SF movies"), but right now his actual achievements fall far short of WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please note that the IP commenting above Geolocates to New Jersey, where Proteus is based. Edit: the same applies to the IP commenting below. CtP (t • c) 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is what Mr. Sibanda has actually done. Please read the article before attacking it. The facts -
a. From a population of close to 500 million in Africa he is the first black person to pen a science fiction epic.
b. He wrote a poetry book that was published by Africa World Press entitled The Songs of Soweto, when he was only 21 years.
c. He started a publishing house, Proteus Books, which publishes books by others – this is not ‘self-publishing’.
d. He is in development to do several films.
Thank-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • !Vote struck out as almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Mziboy, considering that editor's history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. Is simply not true. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o is a black African who is a notable science fiction writer and there are probably others.
B. There is nothing particularly notable about having a book of poetry published at the age of 21.
C. We have seen zero indication that Proteus books has published anything other than Rock of Gibraltar. Not that it is particularly important, self published authors could potentially be notable, but Mr. Sibanda isn't.
D. Being in development isn't notable. If and when these films are released they may receive significant attention the situation could change. --Altfish80 (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to IP above, you seem to be saying that the color of his skin has something to do with his notability, can you explain that? GB fan 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

  • Comment: Clarification
Certainly they is a level of palpable racism here. Again, this is not levied on any single editor but is a general observation.
My facts are as follows:
a. Every-time any one supports the creation of the Ken Sibanda page. That person is systemically attacked by the same cabal of editors as a sock puppet or for meatpacking.
b. The tone in the deletion diatribe is condescending and paternalistic. "He has to wait four years..when he does get notoriety etc."
C. I created the page not to glorify and self promote any one. I created the page because "ken Sibanda" represents the first serious voice to emerge from the African continent dedicated to science fiction as a genre, and as a student of African politics I actually know what I am talking about. For this young man to emerge, given the disparity and distribution of resources, as well as the racism of colonialism is notable in itself. Remember how the racism of our first black president played out with racists arguing that the "first black president is nothing." It is not intentional racism but institutional racism, I think comparing Sibanda to Asimov is inherently racist because it does not acknowledge his history and background. Compare Sibanda to where he came from - not with privileged white writers who were born in Africa but in black Africa, in and of itself.
d. Mr Ngugi has not written any science fiction. If he has please list the titles -- "this is just not true," to use the verbiage of Altfish80.
e. Finally, the charge of racism is also based on the fact that some of the issues you are raising seem like minor - for example change the wording reviews to "news coverage." Other articles that are published here have far less references. The references below are also seen as either my creation or press releases, which is not true.
1. Barbara Holland: From Qunu to Big Applle
2. Page 13 of New York beacon talks about his being a pioneer in science fiction.
3. The University of London, is alma mater has recognized him.
4. The articles in the Spanish Media Olive Press.


e. This deletion page was started by Altfish80 under the guise of fear of harassment --really! I saw nothing in the other logs showing harassment form both side of the debate. what i see is a difference of opinion; an unwillingness to look at Mr. Sibanda from where he is standing and rather to judge him from where we are standing. If this page gets deleted then research who is writing science fiction in africa and construct that page...don't just say names...Ngugi, Soyinka, Lessing, Gordimer.
f. Let me also bring the supervising editor to the fact that since the first deletion this article has undergown great revision as Sibanda continues with his work. Lets edit this page as a team and not let it bring the worst in all of us, myself included. In addition, I reached out several times to flatterunnter in the creation of the page and she indicated areas that needed work, so this is an entry and a work in progress like all articles on wikipedia, it will evolve as Sibanda evolves. All wikipedia pages are not frozen in stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.218.108 (talk • contribs)
  • My name is Fluffernutter. If you find yourself unable to spell it, feel free to copy and paste it from my signature, because if you keep referring to "flatterunnter," no one will know who you mean. I, as well as a few other editors, did indeed point out areas that made your article unacceptable. Unfortunately, those areas do not appear to have been actually addressed in the version of the article that you moved into mainspace. The sources are still unreliable, and the article still fails to assert any notability. Please stop claiming that the motivation of anyone in this conversation is racism. That is a personal attack and it is unacceptable, whether you direct it only at me or make a nebulous "general observation" at all of us. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the spelling lesson. It's a lie that the issues you suggested were never addressed. In fact they were. You had mentioned that the references were not connecting and that references don't support assertions -- that was addressed. You don't have to lie if you feel so strongly that this page must be deleted, just delete the page, since the rules don't seem to apply to you. You have lied through this process and manipulated the wikipedia procedures to produce an outcome suitable to your taste. Here you go again, I was careful to state that not a single individual is being racist but that, this is institutional racism in play. How is that a personal attack! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I really am sick and tired that you feel you have the authority to overide editorial oversight of the references I have sighted. Its unfair and shows that this is now personal. Stop trying so hard.Mziboy (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due respect, I believe that your accusations of racism and forgery made this issue personal a good while ago. CtP (t • c) 01:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to try to offer a rebuttal to Mziboy's original points.
A. There have been issues with many of those trying to get the article kept, so it's only natural that we're a bit wary at this point. However, we're still not assuming that anyone is anyone's sockpuppet without evidence.
B. Bejnar suggested waiting a few years because, as consensus seems to have determined, Mr. Sibanda simply does not appear to be notable per Wikipedia's standards (not the common use of the word), a problem that no amount of editing will fix. However, it is possible that Mr. Sibanda's future projects will results in him meeting this threshold, which is why he suggested waiting instead of creating the article prematurely. He wasn't trying to be condescending, he was simply trying to offer some advice.
C. Personally, I do not believe that the article is too promotional, but its tone does nothing for Mr. Sibanda's issues with notability.
D. Being unfamiliar with his work, I cannot answer this question. Perhaps Altfish80 can help with this one.
E1. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here, as you're the only own so far who has used the term "news coverage" in this debate. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. On references in general, many contained the same promotional sentences/paragraphs, leading us to believe that they originated in press releases. Admittedly, I haven't examined the specific sources you mentioned, and the case might be different with those, although I don;t think anyone asserted that you authored the sources.
E2. There was no harassment involved in previous attempts to delete the article? Um, no, you ridiculed one editor and accused another of forgery. An IP also made a personal attack against Thekillerpenguin (talk · contribs).
F. Again, no amount of editing is going to fix non-notability. CtP (t • c) 01:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you Ctp
At this point I concide that the article might need to have a few phrases rewritten. thank you for showing me that. what I am essentially arguing for is that lets work as a team. Let the entry fall under someone's lap and be rewritten. I would be happy to see you - the killerpenguin work on it a little more.
I know that they is a consensus that he is not yet notable. i disagree because of where he came from - black African. But thank you for the well written insight on improving the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you misinterpreted the mention of Thekillerpenguin as a signature; it was actually me (Chris the Paleontologist, or CtP for short) who left that comment. Thanks for your cooperative attitude, but what I don't understand is that you seem to think that Mr. Sibanda's race has something to do with his notability. (The editor GB fan has also expressed the same confusion with this argument above.) Could you please elaborate on this a bit? CtP (t • c) 02:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia guidelines for notability (people)
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or wellknown work, or collective body of work --- Ken Sibanda satifies this -- black science fiction contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, I disagree that a contribution to something so broad as a genre would satisfy WP:AUTHOR, but to each his own, I suppose. CtP (t • c) 02:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, "collective body of work," can be taken as a genre in the context of wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slashed comment, I can see your argument. CtP (t • c) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, assuming that the genre would qualify, has Mr. Sibanda played a major role in crafting it? CtP (t • c) 02:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ctp yes. In balck Aftica he has. he is not Jules Verne but look at what the continent has gone through--- Africa needs more pages here in wikipedia that are positive and wikipedia cannot invent them. But we cant ignore the little they have..lets expand our hearts on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ctp, it's actually sad how contentious this entry is when Africa is a population of close to one billion and we cant' even mention two black writers attempting to write science fiction who were born in Africa. The only person trying is laughed and ridiculed at as nothing - when people search Wikipedia they find this debate and no starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mziboy's view here does not hold water, as Mr. Sibanda has apparently authored only one novel, The Return to Gibraltar, which doesn't seem to have made a large impact anywhere. I'd hardly credit Mr. Sibanda with playing a major role in the evolution of black science fiction. CtP (t • c) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm not a fan, I must look at the article in an unbiased way. The article appears to fully satisfy GNG. This leads me to the conclusion that we should Keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouniquenames (talk • contribs) 12:05, 30 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Given that many other contributors have suggested that the article doesn't satisfy GNG, could you expand on the particular grounds on which you think it does? In particular, which of the sources cited would provide evidence for this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is met by multiple sources giving in-depth coverage. I understand that to be at least two. Thus, I see it met by page 13 and [1]. Additionally, [2] and possibly [3] help support the claim. (Note that while the last uses the name "forum," it does not seem to be a forum in the traditional internet sense.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is a press release in connection with a book signing, the second is a press release published in an alumni magazine, your third is a press release is connection with a book reading and discussion, published in a privatye organization's newsletter, and your fourth is a press release in connection with a "Book Party/Forum" published in a private organization's newsletter (and, oddly, has nothing whatsoever to do with Brecht). None of these establish the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that is required. As press released-based items, they are inherently biased; none of the publications are reliable in that they are known to actively fact-check for accuracy; and because they are all based on press releases, they are not independent of the subject.

One cannot establish notability by sending out press releases to be published in one's alumni magazine, or having squibs published in the newsletters of friendly organizations, one must be covered is reliable, independent media sources. Of these publication the New York Beacon comes the closest, but the actual item is not a piece of reportage, it's more of an illustrated event listing, and, again, obviously based on a press release. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There appear to be no sources providing evidence that "the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" (WP:NRVE). We have sources that state that Sibanda has written books. We have no sources that suggest that these books are in any way notable - no book reviews from significant sources etc. Writing books isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Borderline notability, at best. The history of COI warrior-like recreations and template removals is enough to tip the scales for me. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say I find it disheartening to see people basing any part of their rationales on who created the article. Yes, Mziboy acted like a clueless hostile fool and was rightly shown the door because of it. That has no bearing on this deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a laudable opinion, but, after all, it's only human to respond in that way. If a guy throws his lasagna on your priceless Persian rug, it's going to be difficult to be objective about the quality of the cooking -- and when he puts on a mask and comes back pretending to be a food critic (see KingArthur2012 below), it's just adding insult to injury.

      In any event, Mziboy has noe been site banned, which makes this article the work of a banned editor, only retroactively. I think it's perfectly reasonable to take that into account. But the bottom line is, it doesn't matter, the article is insufficient on its own, without considering the misbehavior of its creator, but I'm not going to fault those who think it should be deleted for other reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep: How do we deal with the encyclopedic needs as cited above? Notability would appear to be subjective as to whether you accept the references or not. What of the article in the Weekend Post,- http://www.law.udc.edu/resource/resmgr/media/ken_sibanda.pdf and the article in Our weekly -- http://www.ourweekly.com/tags/ken-sibanda are these press releases as well. Are we suggesting journalism is merely cut and paste. And that somehow all these people were too lazy to double check their facts. Journalism is still the first draft of history. Wikipedia is not intended as an evaluation of the very first and should I say, only record kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingArthur2012 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • The above is the first and only edit of a newly created account. Please note that the creator of the article under discussion has been known to use sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KingArthur2012 has been blocked as a ban-evading sock of Mziboy. I've struck out his comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, might it be a good idea to get this AfD semi-protected to prevent any future Mziboy socks from commenting? (In response to KingArthur2012/Mziboy, the Our Weekly article contains no significant coverage. The other does seem better, but even with that article, notability's looking pretty dire. The article from The Weekend Post can't establish notability on its own.) CtP (t • c) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can try asking at WP:RFPP, but in my experience the amount of disruption here probably won't be sufficient to get it semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was that close to taking this to RFPP, but I stopped due to your reasoning. If it happens again, take it straight to RFPP and ask for semi long enough for the AFD to run its course, and that should put Excalibur through it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious sock is obvious
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep. I don't understand why we can't keep this article. Sibanda has done nothing to offend anyone, and his writings are entertaining and good. He has made public appearances promoting his writings and is not self published. (WP:NRVE). If you want to argue his notability, I suggest you read some of his work before you judge the talent. HarryPotterGirl82 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. I added my comment. Let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
T.Canens semi'd for a week. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to add a small note of caution about systemic bias. South Africa seems to have a thriving, if possibly small, science fiction scene at the moment but, for whatever reason, so far it seems difficult to break out of it onto the international scene, especially if you are black (and possibly even if you are white and not quite as talented as Lauren Beukes). However, on the basis of this survey article of last year's South African science fiction, Ken Sibanda seems to be one of the writers most likely to manage it if any do. This does not amount to a reason for keeping the article now, but it does amount to one for allowing its recreation if his international reputation develops or we manage to better identify reliable sources concerning science fiction within South Africa. PWilkinson (talk)
  • I would agree with this. It is entirely possible that Ken Sibanda's future projects could result in him becoming notable. I would still be in favor of salting the article, but only because of its (now banned) creator's history of repeated recreations and sockpuppetry. If Sibanda is shown to meet WP:AUTHOR in the future (which is, again, entirely possible), then I would be entirely in favor of recreating the article. CtP (t • c) 15:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also concur with these thoughts - the salting isn't about freezing out Ken Sibanda should he breakthrough to notability, but about preventing Mziboy from re-creating the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Sibanda_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069218891"