Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntokozo Dlamini

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 redirect to Uzalo. Sandstein 21:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ntokozo Dlamini[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NACTOR, could be redirected to Uzalo, his only significant role, but that has been contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uzalo: Currently fails NACTOR and GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he acted in a major soap opera for a number of years, and was profiled in Drum Magazine, which is a wide circulation magazine. I’ll try to find more sources to determine whether he meets WP:GNG.Park3r (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Park3r A number of the sources are News24 - which should be good enough for GNG. There is some bias towards our local news sources - this might be because they are not as widely known Gbawden (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, we've had articles like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francois_Lensley and an ongoing one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poena Is Koning where the GNG bar is held a lot higher by participants, despite multiple mentions in well-established South African WP:RS, and despite WP:WORLDWIDE being a thing (Lensley being on the cover of, and profiled by, Sarie wasn’t enough to save his article). So, while I agree this article would meet GNG, SA articles are held to a higher bar here. WP:Articles_for_deletion/STANLIB_(2nd_nomination) was another example, although that got reversed. Stan Schmidt was saved because the Herald Sun (a paper with a rather mixed reputation in Australia) profiled him, but the South African sources that adhere to good journalistic standards were disregarded. The GNG bar for SA articles seems to be that editors personally are familiar with the subject and the sources, or that the sources are from the first-world. It's a bit of a weird position, because South Africa is a de facto English-speaking country, but it's outside of the Anglosphere (UK-US-Aus-NZ-Ireland) so it's not culturally similar, and that could explain part of the unfamiliarity. The only solutions would be for AFD participants to make an effort to familiarise themselves with the South African sources, or for more South African editors to participate in AFDs. Park3r (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uzalo: BLPs need clear unambiguous sources and this does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 06:47, 6 March 2023 (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.