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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Dube[edit]

Desmond Dube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unref lp, I couldn't find proof of notability. Has worked as an actor, but not necessarily notable. Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Broadway World is about the best I could find, but it's a non-RS [1]. Trivial coverage here [2]. I don't see enough for GNG or ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. One of South Africa's best known actors, described by the Mail and Guardian as a "giant of the stage" [3], whose had a high profile over a number of decades and coverage in multiple WP:RS. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sources: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. I got bored finding sources, but if these aren't sufficient, I can look for more. Park3r (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones provide the most significant, independent discussions about this actor and his work? The problem may be that the article was so badly and promotionally written and is entirely unreferenced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, promotionally written and unreferenced are not valid reasons to delete an article per WP:BEFORE and the nom states that they couldn't find proof that this individual is notable. dxneo (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it’s not my job to do a WP:BEFORE. Every one of the sources I added above was a WP:RS and adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Park3r (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was, and I didn't even vote to delete. I just noted that the lack of references makes it harder to evaluate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Admittedly, the article could be formatted better and expanded. But yet again, we see a bias against African articles. Simply because some American or European has done a Google search and it has not been to their satisfaction, they decide that an article about an African topic is not notable, without having any idea about our countries, culture, celebrities and personalities. And then even when this proof is provided for them, they find reasons for why an African is not notable 'enough'. It is getting beyond tiresome now. Mangwanani ^(talk) 09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mangwanani, I second that. That's one of the reasons that pushed me to having few news sites from South Africa listed on WP:NPPSG so that the CiteHighlighter script can indicate reliable sources. I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/South Africa on my watchlist and I'm not kidding when I'm saying it is overflowing with AfDs, and I'm grateful they're nominating non-notable subjects but a quick Google search on Desmond Dube is enough to some up SIGCOV which brings me back to your bias statement because look at how many RS Park3r presented. One user once said African sources are tempered with & they are fabricated, and others would say "I've never heard of it". Leaning towards keep per Park3r. dxneo (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is increasingly feeling like an English encyclopaedia with a focus on the Core Anglosphere. Awareness of Systemic Bias seems to be out of the window. Another issue aren’t enough South African editors who participate in AFD or the encyclopaedia itself. I’m feeling increasing levels of disappointment at the energy I’m wasting on defending AFDs like this one. Park3r (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of times I've had to argue with some Westerner who doesn't know the first thing about Africa is staggering. They always state that they are not racist, but you can't help but feel that they do in fact think of us as somewhat backwards and not really capable of knowing our own countries... Even when I've referenced books on particular topics, I've been told "Ahh, but it's not got an online presence, so it can't possibly be real..." It's beyond fatiguing. The highlight for me was when I had the Zimbabwe general election results removed as vandalism, because they had no internet source, even though they were being broadcast on national TV and online as I typed them! But the BBC hadn't recorded the fact, so our dear little Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation can't possibly know what they're reporting until Mr BBC tells them so.... Mangwanani ^(talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mangwanani, I see that you started this article. Maybe the bigger problem is that you wrote an *entirely unreferenced* Wikipedia article. I wonder how many other entirely unreferenced articles you have written. This is not a "formatting" problem, it is a complete lack of referencing. Please add refs per WP:V, one of Wikipedia's key content policies. Perhaps then you would not have to spend your time at AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of an article for deletion is expected to follow WP:BEFORE. Section D clearly states that a basic Google search is required as part of the nomination, and if valid sources exist, then the nomination should not proceed. I will WP:AGF and assume that the nominator and first delete vote somehow didn’t get those results (although I know for a fact that all these results and sources are available outside of South Africa - they are not geoblocked). Park3r (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second Ssilvers, Mangwanani you must reference your articles no matter they've been televised or not as it really is the main wiki key. However, new page reviewers who reviewed the article(s) in the first place are in the wrong and should be stripped off their perms 'cause they could've sent the (unreferenced) article to drafts pace but they want the barnstars so they quickly move through articles. dxneo (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sending SA articles to draft is as good as deleting them, I suspect, but maybe I’m naive and haven’t engaged with draftspace enough. This article was created in 2008. The fact that it hadn’t been nominated for deletion in 15-16 years should raise the index of suspicion that the subject is, in fact notable, and be a further indication that sources should be sought out. But, regardless, editing an article is still an option once WP:BEFORE is completed and reliable sources are found. Park3r (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources provided above show that this is a notable actor. Yes it was made unsourced - because it was made 16 years ago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Criticising the nomination doesn't help the discussion, it just raises the temperature. The nominator rather than WP:PRODing brought this to AfD. The best way to repudiate notability concerns is by adding reliable sources to the article that verify the content and establish notability. If one feels strongly this article should be kept add sources, yet although 20+ sources have been put up in this discussion, 5 days have passed with not a single one added. The article remains unsourced; not a desirable state for any article, let alone for a WP:BLP. Rupples (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s a reasonable point but WP:NOTCLEANUP. I’d also note that you could have added sources to the article as well. Park3r (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't particularly subscribe to AfD is not cleanup; infact I see AfD as a great opportunity to cleanup. Having no reliable sources at all is more than cleanup, especially for a BLP. On your second point, BLP is not an area I normally contribute to and I'm reticent to add sources to BLP articles if I'm unsure of their reliability. I wouldn't have been able to support retention of this article without two or more reliable sources being added. Pleased to see sources have now been added by PARAKANYAA and I'm placing trust in that editor's judgment on their reliability. Rupples (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the light of sources added to the article and identified in this discussion, there seems sufficient reliably sourced coverage for the subject to pass applicable notability guidelines. Rupples (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2024 (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.