Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapya John Kaoma

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 no consensus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kapya John Kaoma[edit]

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

Kapya John Kaoma (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)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are brief mentions, list of articles created by individual, and advertising. reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that "The word 'notable' is used on Wikipedia to mean that independent reliable sources have taken notice of the subject." How is this not the case for this entry? There are a number of "independent reliable sources" cited. Chip.berlet (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This one is just a video posted by him.
  2. This isn't even a source, it's just a list of search results that only proves that he has written articles. It's tantamount to linking to Google search results. You could do a search for my name on Roughstock.com, a country music site that I used to write for, and it'd turn up everything I've written there but it wouldn't assert me as notable.
  3. This source is just a resume, which is not a reliable source at all.

The other links posted are mostly things he has written by himself, which are primary sources. Things that would be reputable include newspaper, magazine, journal, or reputable website articles that are specifically and extensively about him. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The "research-associates" cited on the Boston University page site is not in any way connected to "Political Research Associates." Those are separate appointments for Rev. Kaoma. Different institutions in different cities.
  2. When legitimate independant publishers print a book by Rev. Kaoma, this is not an unreferenced source nor self-promotion by Rev. Kaoma.
  3. Political Research Associates has been recognized as a "reputable"publisher of website articles and print publications--this after tedious Arbcom struggles.
  4. The video in which Rev. Kaoma appears was not made by nor posted by him. It is a page published by the London Guardian called DocuBeat which covers documentaries. According to the Guardian :
  "Uganda's president Yoweri Museveni has approved a law that will see people convicted of homosexuality in Uganda jailed for life. In these extracts from director Roger Ross Williams' documentary God Loves Uganda, undercover filming by a Boston-based Anglican priest, Kapya Kaoma, shows how anti-gay evangelical campaigners from the United States have been influential in the debate, pushing Uganda to pass measures that would be unthinkable in the US."Chip.berlet (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chip.berlet:: The first source is still just a video of him talking, which is not independent of him. The books published by him are still primary sources since he wrote them. The Political Research link still isn't valid since it only proves that he's written articles. It's not an article about him. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a clear violation of NPOV rules. It is also one of the worst articles in trying to create a pan-African ideal I have seen on a person in Afirca. It engages in totally violating NPOV language, and is clearly written with a speccific promotional goal. That being said, the article is also totally devoid of reliable secondary sources. Which probably heavily relates to it being essentially a platform to use Kaoma to attack the actions of various people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I'm surprised that anyone would want to delete this guy's article. He is a major commentator on African issues and have appeared on numerous UK TV programmes over the years on issues relating to Africa including BBC, ITV and Channel 4. I have examined the sources cited and virtually all of them comes from reliable sources including the Guardian video [1] who sourced it from Docubeat - a non-fiction and news oriented organisation affiliated with the Guardian, Huntington Post and El Pais - all of which are reliable sources. These media houses have strong editorial practices. They would not add anything on their websites without following due editorial process. Even the bios and writings of this person from other reliable sources such as the Political Research Associates [2], the Center for Global Christianity and Mission at Boston University (School of Theology) [3] and Huntington Post [4] all passes RS. The Washington Post article [5] about about his life and work also passes RS. As regards to some of his writings, it is irrelevant who authored them provided they are in reliable and veritable sources as per our policies here, and all of them passes RS. We cannot start changing the rules willi nilli just because we don't want a particular type of article here. This person passes WP:GNG or at the very least, WP:BASIC. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Going back to the nomination, "...individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are brief mentions, list of articles created by individual, and advertising." I am not sure how one can equate the source of the references with the substance of the reference. No one is changing the rules, I see only an application of them. Ten Pound Hammer has done a good job of specifically giving examples of the inadequacy of the references. reddogsix (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I refer you to my !vote above. There is no advertising in the sources I've cited. I haven't even include his own website. There is an in-depth coverage about his life and work in the sources cited. What exactly did you want the sources to say that would have satisfied you? You can always take that out with the sources if you feel they have not reported the subject to your liking. As for TenPoundHammer, he has been known for making disingenuous and dubious nominations. Must I remind you about this [6] and this case against him? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that Senegambianamestudy (talk · contribs) is undergoing WP:TEND because they keep blowing up the Wikipedia talk: section of this AFD, saying over and over and over again that the sources are good because they're good. I also find it ridiculous that the user is trying to drag my name through the mud when it was recently decided to loosen my XFD restrictions. To @Senegambianamestudy: -- @Reddogsix: has already explained that the "coverage" which you are claiming is, quote, "brief quotes or single line references - far from what is needed to support inclusion." and your solution was to slather the article with even more passing mentions and blurbs. To wit, as of this revision of the article:
  1. Sources 1 through 14, except for 10, were all published by the source himself. That makes them primary sources, which on their own are not sufficient for notability.
  2. Source 10, as I said earlier, is not what we would consider a "source". It's just a directory listings of articles published by him -- which again, is still a primary source since it consists of content made by the subject himself.
  3. Source 15 just quotes Kapya in a single line on an article that otherwise has nothing to do with Kapya himself. I was quoted in a newspaper article about a local mall. The newspaper article in question confers notability to the mall, certainly, but not to me.
  4. Source 16 is a transcript of a Rachel Maddow show, in which the subject is only shown briefly in a video clip.
  5. Source 17 quotes him passingly in The Economist.
I could go further down each source, but you, @Senegambianamestudy:, seem to be missing the point. We're not doubting that he exists. We're not doubting that he's doing good. But mere name-drops, passing mentions, a single line of being quoted here and there -- none of those is significant coverage. They're just name-drops and quote-mining. Do you have any articles that are exclusively or largely about him and only him? That is the kind of coverage desired. We are not "changing the rules" in an attempt to keep your article out -- we are explaining to you how your sources are only trivial passing mentions, yet you are just covering your ears and screaming "BUT HE'S NOTABLE! THE SOURCES ARE FINE!" despite the deck clearly being stacked against you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is dragging your name through the mud. No one is undergoing tendentious editing. I simply provided the link to your indefinite topic ban. Quote: "TenPoundHammer is indefinitely topic-banned from all deletion activities, broadly construed." Anyway let's not derail this AfD any further. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would have been much more impressed if @Senegambianamestudy had addressed the comments specifically about the quality of references (the items relevant to the AfD) instead of what amounts to probably less than 2% of the comment. None of that 2% has any bearing on the AfD. For goodness sake, focus on saving the article. TPH asks, " Do you have any articles that are exclusively or largely about him and only him?" Provide that and it should help save the article. reddogsix (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I suggest other Wikipedia editors do a Google search for "Kapya John Kaoma" and "Kapya Kaoma" in the "books" and "news" sections to see how the calls for deleting this page lack substance.Chip.berlet (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Provide them in the article (remember Wikipedia is requires ..."in-depth, non-trivial sources...") and it will help insure the article survives the AfD. Relying on someone else to do the work may not move this discussion in a positive direction. You have the burden to provide the substance to allow the article to survive the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But when I pointed out on this discussion page several egregious factual errors by critics of the page for Kapya John Kaoma, my post here on this page was deleted. What's that about? If I make additions to the page for Kapya John Kaoma are they just going to be deleted without comment as well? Do I have to visit this discussion page every day to make sure critics of the page for Kapya John Kaoma are not just deleting what I post here?Chip.berlet (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a WP:diff to the deletion to which you refer? That is a serious accusation, and it needs evidence. I can't see any such deletion of any of your posts. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Chip.berlet </sigh> Do you think that by creating an ad hominem argument you will bolster your justification to keep and that it will eliminate my comment. If there has been a removal of substance, then prove it - not formatting or erroneous text, but text of substance.
Once more, provide the references in the article (remember Wikipedia is requires ..."in-depth, non-trivial sources...") and it will help insure the article survives the AfD. Relying on someone else to do the work may not move this discussion in a positive direction. You have the burden to provide the substance to allow the article to survive the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • question - And what am I supposed to do when some of the evidence for delisting that page discussed here on this talk page is demonstrably false, and when I point that out my comments showing the criticisms are false are deleted? So on Wikipedia false assertions are protected but pointing out the false "evidence" is to be sanctioned? I have been to Arbcom on this sort of complaint with the LaRouchites. This is a major flaw of the system here on Wikipedia. Tell me what I should do when false "evidence" is posted that a grade school student can fact check? This is a serious question. Chip.berlet (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "...my comments showing the criticisms are false are deleted?" Once again, "if there has been a removal of substance, then prove it - not formatting or erroneous text, but text of substance." reddogsix (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that WP:NPROF#1 is met; The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He seems to be a leading expert on LGBT issues in Zambia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though the "reliable sources" only vaguely and passingly mention him? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations are added to the article to establish that he's notable. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got 5 hits for "John Kaoma" on Google/News, [7][8][9][10] are texts by him, that is of no use in this discussion. [11] mentions his name in passing, and that doesn't help either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, "Kapya Kaoma" would be a better search. Will look some more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This [12] (WaPo) isn't enough in itself, but it helps the case for keep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's certainly mentioned and quoted in reliable sources, but that's not what we're looking for. Found these [13][14][15] but IMO they don't push him over the WP:GNG line, I'm sorry to say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The best of the reliable sources in the article and brought forward in this debate, taken as a whole, are sufficient to establish notabilty. I draw a different conclusion than Gråbergs Gråa Sång from the three sources immediately above. I consider those sources good evidence of notability, when evaluated with the other sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree there is now sufficient evidence with the three extra sources above for WP:GNG to be passed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a reasonably strong case for passing WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, in that Kaoma is a prominent figure in his area of research and activism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:43, 19 August 2018 (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/Kapya_John_Kaoma&oldid=855887553"