Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qenazmach Bihonege Lemma

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qenazmach Bihonege Lemma

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Google search turns up absolutely nothing. Only reliable(?) source provided is about a rank and not the subject. Creator stated in their edit summary "more information would be added to this article after more family knowledge is obtain by this account". If the only source is the Creator's family then the subject is clearly not notable and WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Judges and generals are usually notable. Perhaps his appointment was announced in the official government gazette or in one or more newspapers which might be available in a library. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What policy states that Judges and generals are usually notable? WP:JUDGE contains a presumption of notability but WP:BASIC applies to everyone, if there isn't "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" they're not notable and don't warrant a page. Since WP:SOLDIER was deprecated Generals aren't even presumed to be notable. There is no reliable source that the subject here was even a judge. Mztourist (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong or speedy delete. The original editor noted that information about him is not available in published reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC) modified 00:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with another of the author's creations, this article is based purely on 'family knowledge' rather than any published sources. I accept Eastmain's point that the subject might be covered in government gazettes or newspapers; I'd decline an A7 CSD tag based on that an assertion that someone was a judge as a valid WP:SIGNIF claim, but what this needs for me to think we should retain it is for someone to dig out some of those sources and demonstrate notability. I can't find any coverage in RS at all; please ping me if anyone is able to uncover any and I'll reconsider. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, no article. Intothat darkness 20:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace. As mentioned above, without any sources or verifiability it should not be published on WP. However, if the author's claims are true that he held the claimed position, that could be notable. I think placing it in draft space would give the author a chance to provide verifiable references. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 - Created 3 September 2021‎ by TRUTHINCommons, a confirmed sock of LEKReports (blocked 19 August 2021). Эlcobbola _talk 20:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: I don't see where the puppetry has been confirmed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the global account? I'm a CU. Эlcobbola _talk 20:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: The account was not showing locked when I looked earlier. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in light of that, I endorse speedy deletion under G5 as well. I'm not sure whether I'm too involved to delete it myself, since I've commented here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disagree with draftifying (which misuses the AfC process), the complete absence of sources, even the most fleeting of a mention, makes this hard to consider as anything other than delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2021 (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.