Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Maina

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. In addition to the tendency to keep bishops, sourcing has been identified which makes that not being a policy moot. Star Mississippi 13:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Maina

[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 BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Only routine announcement are available. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obvious WP:GNG pass with WP:SIGCOV in the Nation (major Kenyan paper) and the Nelson Mail. Was a WP:BEFORE done? Furthermore, per WP:BISHOPS, "The bishops of major Christian denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kenya and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned before - WP BISHOPS is only an essay and it is not an official Wikipedia policy. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually every bishop covered by BISHOPS has been kept at AfD as far back as you can go. It’s not just a common outcome, it’s a near-universal outcome. The whole point of it is to express the view of the community about bishops’ notability. Nor did you address the GNG-qualifying sources I identified above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this source is not SIGCOV - [1] we have only press-release rewritten by journalists and several citations from various interested parties. No deep independent coverage, kind of churnalism or occasional trivial mention.

Living person must meet GNG and ANYBIO primarily. And I don't see how the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

This source [2] is also not SIGCOV as it's built mainly around citations from the Mr. Maina or his fellows and the article has a classical press-release copy-paste signs, that makes it a clear churnalism piece (not independent and reliable). Overall no source is suitable for ANYBIO. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing that says articles that quote the subject can't be WP:SIGCOV; you are misunderstanding WP:INTERVIEW. A Q&A-style interview doesn't so it's a primary source, but a reliable source will incorporate additional perspective about the subject and these do. And do you have the press release you say these reliable-source articles are based on for a point of comparison? Both show evidence of original reporting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are referring not to an official Wikipedia policy, but to an essay: Wikipedia Interviews. This is not an official policy, so please do not manipulate the discussion and only refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline – this is the only guideline that should be followed. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BISHOPS makes this a rather pointless nomination. I suggest that you withdraw this AfD, Shinsi Bohansetr. Schwede 66 20:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is WP BISHOPS an official policy of Wikipedia? Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept diocesan bishops of major denominations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anglican Diocese of Nelson an alternative to deletion. WP:BISHOPS is an essay, it does not matter at all and has no bearing on notability. The Nation article is an interview. I don't see enough coverage to meet GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are quotations in the Nation article from two other people in addition to the subject and additional reporting. It’s a secondary source, not an interview. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone speaking exclusively to Sunday Nation isn't an interview then I don't know what is. Regardless the coverage isn't great enough for a stand-alone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, an exclusive means that the Nation was the only outlet in its market to carry this news. And a Q&A interview is a primary source because it is solely the subject’s words. This article was based in part on an interview with Maina but also incorporates several other people’s statements and Offers the reporter’s own analysis and is thus secondary coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliability sources coverage such as The Nation and Nelson Mail, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... The Nation is just an interview with some quotations from the other people. The Stuff (Nelson) has the same problem - has too many quotations and doesn't provide enough in-depth coverage to establish the subject's notability. I also doubt it it really independent in terms of WP RELIABLE SOURCES. 157.157.69.81 (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify delete or draftify. not enough sources and the general notability is not well illustrated (hope yet). 157.157.69.81 (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Three of the four keep !vote arguments are citing or alluding to WP:BISHOPS, which is a section within a WikiProject essay. Left guide (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2024 (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.