- 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. NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Mulumba Ivan Matthias
- Mulumba Ivan Matthias ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this biography is simply not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Additionally, the entry was created by the subject himself, and has been maintained throughout by him. That is self-promotion. Cartney23 ( talk) 20:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment the page was not approved by the subject and has been edited by other editors. Communities and persons are encouraged to contribute to wikipedia. I've seen this with pages i've made and the persons have added some information. Would we call this self promotion because they are adding material that you might not have access to?-- Faintsmoke ( talk) 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- ThaddeusB, you misunderstood. What I meant is that the article was subimited for approval. At the time it was a user page.-- Faintsmoke ( talk) 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is a notable African writer published in multiple sources. Greenman ( talk) 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment--With due respect, Greenman, I am an African - a Ugandan - and I would like to contest your definition of "notable". There is the small fact that this is an article written by the author himself. His only literary output is a book he self-published - the publishers of the book are a company at which he is an executive - and it's been written about or reviewed by non-notable sources. They are the type of sources or publications that would review anything. Even then, without judging the merits of the book (which I have not read), I believe there are more worthy Ugandan writers for Wikipedia entries. Mulumba, despite his obvious hard work, has not yet reached that level of notability. -- Cartney23 ( talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - At first glance, I do not see any reliable sources for the article. However, I may be missing something. Pinging @
The Herald: who accepted this at AfC for input. --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually pinging this time: @ The Herald: -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep--Those kalaharireview and africanbookclub cites makes it go in my view (reason(s) why I accepted it). Don't think its not notable one..
The Herald :
here I am 05:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete--Anyone on this page can review any book or publication by an African writer, submit it to the African Book Club or Kalahari Review, and it will be published. At least I can, since I have been published in several publications on the continent. All you need is someone willing to write a positive review of your book, say a friend or colleague. You can't do that with the Guardian, or the New Yorker, or even the Mail & Guardian. I think there should be a more thorough determinant of notability! -- Cartney23 ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your nomination is a presumed delete "vote" - there is no need to say delete again. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Struck duplicate !vote from nominator. The nomination is considered as your !vote. NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment How about a book being reviewed in "The monitor"? Cartney23, you seem to think that credibility or notability is only got when foreign newspapers review a book or an artist. Most reviews of
Jennifer Nansubuga Makumbi's book, "Kintu", have been on these platforms which you are trashing. Does that make it less notable because it was ignored by the news paper platforms you've pointed out? --
Faintsmoke (
talk) 09:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment--Ugandan newspapers have no literary standards to speak of, unfortunately. Especially today. A review on some Ugandan blogs, So Many Stories, for example, carries more weight than a review in the Monitor or the New Vision. Also, Kintu was reviewed in the Guardian and a big number of literary blogs, like Granta. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment You are using a personal bias to grade news papers. We are not going to wait for every book to be reviewd by the Guardian and the like, to know that it is notable. Some books have been reviewed in "The East african" for example, and others were written before some of the blogs and media you've cited came into existance. Should we ignore them because they have not appeared in those news papers? It is true that more notable authors and writers have works reviewd in those channels? But is that all we should base on? I have brought this up because i've made several pages of Ugandan authors. Should their presence on wikipedia be questioned based on the same rule? Most of them have been reviewed in those platforms which you claim have no literary merit.--
Faintsmoke (
talk) 12:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think people like Makumbi, Baingana, or Arac de Nyeko need to be reviewed by Monitor or New Vision for us to know that they are notable. Their notability speaks for itself basing on the quality of their work and the recognition they have received from several reputable sources, not friendly articles written in local newspapers by their colleagues and friends. In the same vein, they don't need to write their own Wikipedia entries because someone will notice that they don't have entries and remedy that. Their notability speaks for itself. Additionally, I don't know any discerning Literati who looks at the Monitor or New Vision for their book reviews: some journalists or guest-writers might pull of a good and unbiased review; most times, however, anything goes into those papers. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 12:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment When you say that someone will notice and make the page for writers like Baingana, what do you mean? Some of these authors have been around for some time and have only got pages recently. If not, the pages were mere stubs. There are not so many people out there making pages for Ugandan writers. Some authors are more notable than others. I agree. Lets not use the same judgement a a basis for who get a wikipedia page and who doesn't. The next thing you might disagree with is the worthiness of literary prizes in Uganda. --
Faintsmoke (
talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I thought the whole point of a Wiki article/entry is notability? That is the main criteria, right? Also, I am aware that there are very notable people who do not have entries on Wikipedia. One of my professors in South Africa, respected in academia and a national figure, does not have a Wikipedia entry (although I have always been hoping to create one for him). That does not mean that a teaching assistant, or a lecturer at a Technikon should come and create a page for themselves. And, it also shows that even in countries with a more active Wikipedia editing process there are still omissions. That said, I strongly believe that Mulumba Innocent Mathias is simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. -- Cartney23 ( talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment When you say that someone will notice and make the page for writers like Baingana, what do you mean? Some of these authors have been around for some time and have only got pages recently. If not, the pages were mere stubs. There are not so many people out there making pages for Ugandan writers. Some authors are more notable than others. I agree. Lets not use the same judgement a a basis for who get a wikipedia page and who doesn't. The next thing you might disagree with is the worthiness of literary prizes in Uganda. --
Faintsmoke (
talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think people like Makumbi, Baingana, or Arac de Nyeko need to be reviewed by Monitor or New Vision for us to know that they are notable. Their notability speaks for itself basing on the quality of their work and the recognition they have received from several reputable sources, not friendly articles written in local newspapers by their colleagues and friends. In the same vein, they don't need to write their own Wikipedia entries because someone will notice that they don't have entries and remedy that. Their notability speaks for itself. Additionally, I don't know any discerning Literati who looks at the Monitor or New Vision for their book reviews: some journalists or guest-writers might pull of a good and unbiased review; most times, however, anything goes into those papers. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 12:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment You are using a personal bias to grade news papers. We are not going to wait for every book to be reviewd by the Guardian and the like, to know that it is notable. Some books have been reviewed in "The East african" for example, and others were written before some of the blogs and media you've cited came into existance. Should we ignore them because they have not appeared in those news papers? It is true that more notable authors and writers have works reviewd in those channels? But is that all we should base on? I have brought this up because i've made several pages of Ugandan authors. Should their presence on wikipedia be questioned based on the same rule? Most of them have been reviewed in those platforms which you claim have no literary merit.--
Faintsmoke (
talk) 12:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- As an established newspaper,
Daily Monitor is presumed to be a reliable source. Anyone arguing otherwise has the burden of proof... There is no indication any of the other sources meet
the definition of reliable sources. Where are these other newspaper reviews you speak of - they aren't listed in the article as sources. --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 16:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- No one is saying that the Monitor is not a reliable source. It is a reliable source, for news about
Uganda. That however does not make it a reliable authority on judging literary merit or literary notability. It is not the New York Times, or the Guardian, or the New Yorker, which aim to be excellent throughout. Uganda, too, is a small country, with almost all it's literary activity happening in
Kampala. Newspaper reviewers tend to be close friends of writers - especially the newspaper reviewer who reviewed the book that is the determinant of the subject's notability - or, if not, a friend of a friend of the writer. Additionally, I think the obvious fact that the entry was written by the writer himself, and that the book that contains all his output was published by him, by a company he owns, should raise enough flags. My belief is that he does not yet belong to the league of notable Ugandan writers. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- If a reliable newspaper publishes a review of a author/book, that is evidence the subject is notable. Saying the reviewer may be friends with the author is speculation, which has no place in a deletion discussion. If you want to discredit the Monitor review, you are going to have to provide some evidence beyond your opinion of Ugandan literary journalism. A COI is not a valid reason for deletion either... Now, notice I haven't said Matthias is notable. So far, there is insufficient evidence of notability, but a claim was made that more sources (reviews) exist, so I am reserving judgement until those sources are either pointed out or the claim proves unsubstantiated... Making invalid arguments doesn't help the deletion or keep side. It only distracts and by consequence tends to weaken the argument being made. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- No one is saying that the Monitor is not a reliable source. It is a reliable source, for news about
Uganda. That however does not make it a reliable authority on judging literary merit or literary notability. It is not the New York Times, or the Guardian, or the New Yorker, which aim to be excellent throughout. Uganda, too, is a small country, with almost all it's literary activity happening in
Kampala. Newspaper reviewers tend to be close friends of writers - especially the newspaper reviewer who reviewed the book that is the determinant of the subject's notability - or, if not, a friend of a friend of the writer. Additionally, I think the obvious fact that the entry was written by the writer himself, and that the book that contains all his output was published by him, by a company he owns, should raise enough flags. My belief is that he does not yet belong to the league of notable Ugandan writers. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment--Ugandan newspapers have no literary standards to speak of, unfortunately. Especially today. A review on some Ugandan blogs, So Many Stories, for example, carries more weight than a review in the Monitor or the New Vision. Also, Kintu was reviewed in the Guardian and a big number of literary blogs, like Granta. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- if several reliable newspapers publishes a substantial review of a book, and if the particular newspaper is known for in fact having reliable book reviews, rather than just publishing reviews of all local authors or anything anyone send it, then it can show notability. Not all newspapers sufficiently selective for general news are reliable in this; there is essentially no source reliable for everything. The reason for not considering the publushing to automatically imply notability is the likelihood of their representing PR, not independent edited journalism. (At least, that's how I look at it) DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete - The Monitor review is a demonstration of notability. The AfricanBookClub interview is another, but very marginal as a source. That's it - the rest of the sources are either material supplied by the author, very brief, unreliable, or some combination thereof. That's not enough to demonstrate notability, IMO, although it is close. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep- I still lean towards keep. As the comment above states, the topic was covered in The Monitor and the AfricanBookClub, where he won an award. Much of the earlier discussion revolves around the fact that the author submitted most of the article himself. I agree this is not ideal, but I don't think it's relevant in this case. Earlier discussion also revolves around whether there are more notable writers that don't have articles. Undoubtedly there are. Again, this is not relevant. Simply, it comes down to whether the topic is notable or not. It's marginal, but there are a number of independent sources, and that is sufficient for me. Greenman ( talk) 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Struck duplicate !vote directly above, as user has !voted to keep earlier, and only one !vote is allowed. NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Mulumba Ivan Matthias
- Mulumba Ivan Matthias ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this biography is simply not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Additionally, the entry was created by the subject himself, and has been maintained throughout by him. That is self-promotion. Cartney23 ( talk) 20:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 21:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment the page was not approved by the subject and has been edited by other editors. Communities and persons are encouraged to contribute to wikipedia. I've seen this with pages i've made and the persons have added some information. Would we call this self promotion because they are adding material that you might not have access to?-- Faintsmoke ( talk) 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- ThaddeusB, you misunderstood. What I meant is that the article was subimited for approval. At the time it was a user page.-- Faintsmoke ( talk) 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is a notable African writer published in multiple sources. Greenman ( talk) 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment--With due respect, Greenman, I am an African - a Ugandan - and I would like to contest your definition of "notable". There is the small fact that this is an article written by the author himself. His only literary output is a book he self-published - the publishers of the book are a company at which he is an executive - and it's been written about or reviewed by non-notable sources. They are the type of sources or publications that would review anything. Even then, without judging the merits of the book (which I have not read), I believe there are more worthy Ugandan writers for Wikipedia entries. Mulumba, despite his obvious hard work, has not yet reached that level of notability. -- Cartney23 ( talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - At first glance, I do not see any reliable sources for the article. However, I may be missing something. Pinging @
The Herald: who accepted this at AfC for input. --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually pinging this time: @ The Herald: -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep--Those kalaharireview and africanbookclub cites makes it go in my view (reason(s) why I accepted it). Don't think its not notable one..
The Herald :
here I am 05:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete--Anyone on this page can review any book or publication by an African writer, submit it to the African Book Club or Kalahari Review, and it will be published. At least I can, since I have been published in several publications on the continent. All you need is someone willing to write a positive review of your book, say a friend or colleague. You can't do that with the Guardian, or the New Yorker, or even the Mail & Guardian. I think there should be a more thorough determinant of notability! -- Cartney23 ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your nomination is a presumed delete "vote" - there is no need to say delete again. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Struck duplicate !vote from nominator. The nomination is considered as your !vote. NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment How about a book being reviewed in "The monitor"? Cartney23, you seem to think that credibility or notability is only got when foreign newspapers review a book or an artist. Most reviews of
Jennifer Nansubuga Makumbi's book, "Kintu", have been on these platforms which you are trashing. Does that make it less notable because it was ignored by the news paper platforms you've pointed out? --
Faintsmoke (
talk) 09:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment--Ugandan newspapers have no literary standards to speak of, unfortunately. Especially today. A review on some Ugandan blogs, So Many Stories, for example, carries more weight than a review in the Monitor or the New Vision. Also, Kintu was reviewed in the Guardian and a big number of literary blogs, like Granta. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment You are using a personal bias to grade news papers. We are not going to wait for every book to be reviewd by the Guardian and the like, to know that it is notable. Some books have been reviewed in "The East african" for example, and others were written before some of the blogs and media you've cited came into existance. Should we ignore them because they have not appeared in those news papers? It is true that more notable authors and writers have works reviewd in those channels? But is that all we should base on? I have brought this up because i've made several pages of Ugandan authors. Should their presence on wikipedia be questioned based on the same rule? Most of them have been reviewed in those platforms which you claim have no literary merit.--
Faintsmoke (
talk) 12:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think people like Makumbi, Baingana, or Arac de Nyeko need to be reviewed by Monitor or New Vision for us to know that they are notable. Their notability speaks for itself basing on the quality of their work and the recognition they have received from several reputable sources, not friendly articles written in local newspapers by their colleagues and friends. In the same vein, they don't need to write their own Wikipedia entries because someone will notice that they don't have entries and remedy that. Their notability speaks for itself. Additionally, I don't know any discerning Literati who looks at the Monitor or New Vision for their book reviews: some journalists or guest-writers might pull of a good and unbiased review; most times, however, anything goes into those papers. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 12:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment When you say that someone will notice and make the page for writers like Baingana, what do you mean? Some of these authors have been around for some time and have only got pages recently. If not, the pages were mere stubs. There are not so many people out there making pages for Ugandan writers. Some authors are more notable than others. I agree. Lets not use the same judgement a a basis for who get a wikipedia page and who doesn't. The next thing you might disagree with is the worthiness of literary prizes in Uganda. --
Faintsmoke (
talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I thought the whole point of a Wiki article/entry is notability? That is the main criteria, right? Also, I am aware that there are very notable people who do not have entries on Wikipedia. One of my professors in South Africa, respected in academia and a national figure, does not have a Wikipedia entry (although I have always been hoping to create one for him). That does not mean that a teaching assistant, or a lecturer at a Technikon should come and create a page for themselves. And, it also shows that even in countries with a more active Wikipedia editing process there are still omissions. That said, I strongly believe that Mulumba Innocent Mathias is simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. -- Cartney23 ( talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment When you say that someone will notice and make the page for writers like Baingana, what do you mean? Some of these authors have been around for some time and have only got pages recently. If not, the pages were mere stubs. There are not so many people out there making pages for Ugandan writers. Some authors are more notable than others. I agree. Lets not use the same judgement a a basis for who get a wikipedia page and who doesn't. The next thing you might disagree with is the worthiness of literary prizes in Uganda. --
Faintsmoke (
talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think people like Makumbi, Baingana, or Arac de Nyeko need to be reviewed by Monitor or New Vision for us to know that they are notable. Their notability speaks for itself basing on the quality of their work and the recognition they have received from several reputable sources, not friendly articles written in local newspapers by their colleagues and friends. In the same vein, they don't need to write their own Wikipedia entries because someone will notice that they don't have entries and remedy that. Their notability speaks for itself. Additionally, I don't know any discerning Literati who looks at the Monitor or New Vision for their book reviews: some journalists or guest-writers might pull of a good and unbiased review; most times, however, anything goes into those papers. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 12:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment You are using a personal bias to grade news papers. We are not going to wait for every book to be reviewd by the Guardian and the like, to know that it is notable. Some books have been reviewed in "The East african" for example, and others were written before some of the blogs and media you've cited came into existance. Should we ignore them because they have not appeared in those news papers? It is true that more notable authors and writers have works reviewd in those channels? But is that all we should base on? I have brought this up because i've made several pages of Ugandan authors. Should their presence on wikipedia be questioned based on the same rule? Most of them have been reviewed in those platforms which you claim have no literary merit.--
Faintsmoke (
talk) 12:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- As an established newspaper,
Daily Monitor is presumed to be a reliable source. Anyone arguing otherwise has the burden of proof... There is no indication any of the other sources meet
the definition of reliable sources. Where are these other newspaper reviews you speak of - they aren't listed in the article as sources. --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 16:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- No one is saying that the Monitor is not a reliable source. It is a reliable source, for news about
Uganda. That however does not make it a reliable authority on judging literary merit or literary notability. It is not the New York Times, or the Guardian, or the New Yorker, which aim to be excellent throughout. Uganda, too, is a small country, with almost all it's literary activity happening in
Kampala. Newspaper reviewers tend to be close friends of writers - especially the newspaper reviewer who reviewed the book that is the determinant of the subject's notability - or, if not, a friend of a friend of the writer. Additionally, I think the obvious fact that the entry was written by the writer himself, and that the book that contains all his output was published by him, by a company he owns, should raise enough flags. My belief is that he does not yet belong to the league of notable Ugandan writers. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- If a reliable newspaper publishes a review of a author/book, that is evidence the subject is notable. Saying the reviewer may be friends with the author is speculation, which has no place in a deletion discussion. If you want to discredit the Monitor review, you are going to have to provide some evidence beyond your opinion of Ugandan literary journalism. A COI is not a valid reason for deletion either... Now, notice I haven't said Matthias is notable. So far, there is insufficient evidence of notability, but a claim was made that more sources (reviews) exist, so I am reserving judgement until those sources are either pointed out or the claim proves unsubstantiated... Making invalid arguments doesn't help the deletion or keep side. It only distracts and by consequence tends to weaken the argument being made. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- No one is saying that the Monitor is not a reliable source. It is a reliable source, for news about
Uganda. That however does not make it a reliable authority on judging literary merit or literary notability. It is not the New York Times, or the Guardian, or the New Yorker, which aim to be excellent throughout. Uganda, too, is a small country, with almost all it's literary activity happening in
Kampala. Newspaper reviewers tend to be close friends of writers - especially the newspaper reviewer who reviewed the book that is the determinant of the subject's notability - or, if not, a friend of a friend of the writer. Additionally, I think the obvious fact that the entry was written by the writer himself, and that the book that contains all his output was published by him, by a company he owns, should raise enough flags. My belief is that he does not yet belong to the league of notable Ugandan writers. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment--Ugandan newspapers have no literary standards to speak of, unfortunately. Especially today. A review on some Ugandan blogs, So Many Stories, for example, carries more weight than a review in the Monitor or the New Vision. Also, Kintu was reviewed in the Guardian and a big number of literary blogs, like Granta. --
Cartney23 (
talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- if several reliable newspapers publishes a substantial review of a book, and if the particular newspaper is known for in fact having reliable book reviews, rather than just publishing reviews of all local authors or anything anyone send it, then it can show notability. Not all newspapers sufficiently selective for general news are reliable in this; there is essentially no source reliable for everything. The reason for not considering the publushing to automatically imply notability is the likelihood of their representing PR, not independent edited journalism. (At least, that's how I look at it) DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete - The Monitor review is a demonstration of notability. The AfricanBookClub interview is another, but very marginal as a source. That's it - the rest of the sources are either material supplied by the author, very brief, unreliable, or some combination thereof. That's not enough to demonstrate notability, IMO, although it is close. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep- I still lean towards keep. As the comment above states, the topic was covered in The Monitor and the AfricanBookClub, where he won an award. Much of the earlier discussion revolves around the fact that the author submitted most of the article himself. I agree this is not ideal, but I don't think it's relevant in this case. Earlier discussion also revolves around whether there are more notable writers that don't have articles. Undoubtedly there are. Again, this is not relevant. Simply, it comes down to whether the topic is notable or not. It's marginal, but there are a number of independent sources, and that is sufficient for me. Greenman ( talk) 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Struck duplicate !vote directly above, as user has !voted to keep earlier, and only one !vote is allowed. NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- 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.