Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Mungoshi (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Mungoshi[edit]

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

The only notable fact is his being, once, in the Guinness Book of World Records. The article probably does not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 or WP:CSD#G11, although one could make a case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This autobiographical version is much more promotional than the previously-deleted version, but better referenced . However, few of the refs are to reliable sources. The BBC article is all about Jonah, as is the SMH article (via AFP) and he gets a passing mention in The Herald article about his family.
Possible WP:BIO1E issues, but getting close to GNG. If kept, it needs massive pruning of all the self-promotion. However, the Herald article notes that the Mungoshi family is a fairly notable dynasty. Is there perhaps scope for merging this into a Mungoshi family article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
See also CFD of a slew of categories created for this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an WP:AUTOBIO which doesn't really make any claim of notability strong enough to justify overlooking the conflict of interest issue. And furthermore, the subject also self-created a whole bunch of non-defining "keyword" categories ("African team building facilitators"? "Zimbabwean success coaches"?) that exist only to contain him because there's no extended category tree to parent them — which makes it even more clear that the intent here was advertorial rather than encyclopedic. There might in fact be more legitimate grounds for an article, per BrownHairedGirl above, but WP:TNT pertains — even if a proper article can be written neutrally and independently by somebody other than the subject himself, we're still better off starting from scratch than we are trying to fix this as written. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat persuades to me to get off the fence. Not worth trying to fix this self-promotion of an at-best marginally-notable topic. It's WP:TNT time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2017 (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.