Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Musoke-Nteyafas (2nd nomination)

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 delete. with no prejudice to recreation in the future if suitable sources are found. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Musoke-Nteyafas

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

She is not notable at all. The publications she has been published in are non-notable, and seem to be of questionable quality. She is also inactive as a journalist or, if she writes, has no current web presence to speak of. It is a weak biography that should have been removed a long time ago. Cartney23 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Megalibrarygirl:... 104.163.153.162 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some references and tried to clean up a bit. All of my instincts think she's likely notable, but I'm not getting the hits I need to really say either way. I'm flummoxed. If anyone finds more, ping me to weigh in. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I applaud Megalibrarygirl's efforts, though I agree with her doubts about whether it's enough — if the strongest source that can be provided is her contributor biography at the top of her section in an anthology she contributed to, then that's not really a solid WP:AUTHOR pass because she would have written it herself. And the other two sources I can actually see aren't brilliant ones either (the Gale one just leads me to a login page.) But I ran a ProQuest search as well, and literally the only new hit I got for her there was a brief soundbite from 2008 about her hopes for the Obama presidency. Our inclusion standards in 2018 have been tightened up considerably due to systemic abuse of our processes, and are now much more strongly tied to sourceability — unlike 2005 when people's gut feelings about whether the topic sounded notable could more easily muddy up the waters — and under 2018 standards, she's just not sourceable enough. There's not a single keep argument in the original discussion (and yes, I'm including my own) that would pass muster in an AFD discussion today. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial sense was delete. If Megalibrarygirl cannot suss out good refs, I am now certain they do not exist.104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears as if the subject of the article was the initial author of the article in 2005... or someone with the same name. Theredproject (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 January 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.