Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Langa

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Langa[edit]

[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)

I find this difficult to assess. Langa appears to have made little impact as an author, while his assassination caused some ripples. Still, the available sources essentially consist of one writeup [1] (by an NGO generally regarded as reliable). The linked collection of documents would mostly be characterized as "passing mentions" by our metrics, I'm afraid. This feels like a suitable subject for an article, but the source situation makes me wonder. Opinions please. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that he has three brothers who each have a linked article is relevant. If his brothers themselves are notable, having a sibling assassinated is an important part of their stories. Of course the content of this article could be embedded in each of those articles, but what's the harm in instead linking each to this one? Michaelgraaf (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

Keep: Having a page dedicated to this person on sahistory, the country's premier history site - https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/benjamin-johnson-langa - gives the subject clear notability. I don't have time to look further right now, but this looks useful as well - https://www.sahistory.org.za/collections/80452. Greenman (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The manner of his assassination as part of an apartheid dirty tricks campaign that led to two men being executed, and another to die in ANC custody, the fact that his murder was examined at the TRC and the fact that two South African Presidents saw fit to publicly apologise to his family would combine to indicate notability. When Googling his name I found another article from 2019 in a WP:RS that used his murder to illustrate the dangers of making false political accusations.[2]. There also seems to be a lot of material on Google Books. Park3r (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a bad source; initally looks like a passing mention, but it does focus on Langa. Don't know if we are there yet with these two though. Re deletion being based on notability rather than article content: that's true, but notability is determined by availability of possible sources. I.e., it has to be shown that sufficient solid sources are available to demonstrate notability - if so, it doesn't matter if they are at present actually used in the article. But they need to be shown to exist. The question is whether that's the case here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete Langa seems to have some decent sources on him, but this page is not nearly as developed as it should be. It is a stub. I would not be opposed to keeping this page if someone were to add more; it does not feel ready to be published. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn’t WP:CONTN apply? Deletion is based on notability, not on article content. Park3r (talk) 04:55, 7 March 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.