Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissinger N. Sibanda

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 speedy delete (G4), blatant recreation of an article already deleted previously via a deletion discussion. --MuZemike 20:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kissinger N. Sibanda[edit]

View log

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

This article was previously deleted after an ugly AfD under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda. The creator is or has a very close connection with the subject and sent me several harassing emails from the subject's production company. With that said there are few if any reliable sources written about this person and the article is currently based almost entirely on press releases and online profiles. Daniel 17:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be speedied. It is a recreation of a page deleted due to a deletion discussion. I don't see many reliable sources, either. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that it wasn't actually deleted as a direct result of the AfD. The author blanked the article several times and recreated it under different names and the AfD was closed as a "G7 author blanking" rather than a "delete." You are right that a G4 speedy would probably meet the spirit if not the letter of the law. --Daniel 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Seems like the entry is not a stretch. The above comments by Daniel do not address the content and why this should be deleted. Also, are the only notabale people from South Africa supposedly white. Dont really understand, besides personal reasons, whats really wrong with this entry. Again wiki policy is not to delete pages but to edit them threw, deletion seems inappropriate here. See wiki deletion policy. "Most pages start of this way...."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article is not the same but a more detailed researched article for "Ken Sibanda." I do not agree that if an article is deleted this means the peronality will never appear on wikipedia again. Rewrite and keep....

Again, the ugliness of the previous debate was because of internal manipulation by various users of wikipedia without properly addressing the man's achievements, I am entitled to resubmit the article where Ken sibanda is appearing as ....1. notable University of London alumni and 2. notable black science fiction writer.

Sources include: Gibraltar News; Euro Weekly; Weekend Post; Montclair times: Essex Times; Olive Press, Spain

This should not be a personal vendetta against individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.159.179 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LETS DISCUSS THE ARTICLE NOT PERSONAL REVENGE!JUST A MINOR ADDITION: THE PREVIOUS ARTICLE WAS DELETED AFTER END OF DISCUSSION, ALSO STOP PUTTING INNUENDO THAT I AM CLOSE TO THE SUBJECT NOR AM I THE SUBJECT.

KEEP and CENSURE EDITORS:

There is nothing wrong with the entry except that it might need a bit of an editorial rewrite. What bothers me with the attack on the article is the racist and crudeness involved. I have actually taken the time to check all references listed in the article and to verify his past speaking engagements: all solid. I do not agree with the suggestion that Ken Sibanda is affiliated with these news outlets. Perhpas, what these editors lack is a complete understanding of African and South African history. Some - it would appears, and I agree with the above entry - have a personal bone to chew with the Ken Sibanda entry.

This is a much needed entry as oppossed to the many wikipedia pages that the editors have created for themselves, including the editors who are attacking this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.62 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Again addressing the issues raised. The entry it would appear is a much needed addition to that database of narrative. Secondly, I agree with the immediate above comments, that deletion is not the proper remedy here, wikipedia polcy is that deletion is to occur as the only alternative where article is in breach of noted policy..."many pages start of this way." There is indeed some racism at play here that Wikipedia supervisors need to address.
Comment I have a feeling that the editors voting KEEP are socks, no offense intended. I think a grain of salt needs to be taken. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO COMMENT

Once we run out of ideas then we start making false accusations, this page should never have been nominated for deletion. The above comment by "thekillerpenguin" is a good example that one of the editors involved in this travesty has run out of ideas. I think thats the grain of salt that should be taken and it needs to be administered to "The-killer-penguin," as he is affectionately known. lol. Hopefully the penguin will become less of a killer, as they say.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.159.179 (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One word: WP:NPA Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2012 (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.