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The result was withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Solly Afrika Mapaila (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Merely an apparatchik of the South Africa Communist Party and not been elected hence he is not notable. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep ( talk) 00:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Mapaila is effectively the day-to-day leader of the South African Communist Party, one of the three components of the Tripartite Alliance that has ruled South Africa for many years. The two SACP leaders higher ranking than Mapaila hold senior government positions. There is nothing in our notability guidelines that says an unelected party official cannot be notable. A Google News search shows extensive coverage of Manila in reliable sources, indicating that he is a prominent critic of Jacob Zuma. He is notable and the article should be improved and expanded instead of being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep While not personally elected he is a major leader of a party within the democratically-elected government of South Africa. Significant coverage demonstrated. Article title should be renamed to remove his middle name AusLondonder ( talk) 08:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment At the moment, there is not enough references to satisfy the BLP Process. There is only one valid reference on this article. Unless more are found it will either be going back into the BLP-Prod or Afd process, after this. If somebody can add real verifiable references, then it will be ideal. scope_creep ( talk) 10:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

BLP prod only applies when articles "contain no sources in any form." That point is in bold in the lead of the guideline page to make that more clear to you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have expanded the article, adding four references to reliable sources that were easy to find. Instead of trying to delete articles about clearly notable topics, we should be improving and referencing such articles. Scope creep, will you please consider withdrawing your nomination? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Close Sufficient references added to verify notability. Cullen³²⁸ It is not my business to add references to articles, particularly when I'm reviewing them. If everybody did that, the backlog would never be addressed. They should have be put in by the originating editor, save everybody a lot of trouble, but they didn't care enough about it. The BLP is pretty clear what can stay and what can't. I do have my own stuff to work on. scope_creep ( talk) 19:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• Reply We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, not to try to delete articles about notable topics, Scope creep. Please do not nominate articles about notable topics for deletion. I recommend that you read WP:BEFORE and follow its wise advice. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Of course, absolutely, we are all wanting a better encyclopedia, but the BLP notability guidelines are crystal clear now. If you can't verify it, it gets deleted, whether it is notable or not. It has to be verifiable. There is a backlog of 15000 articles waiting to be reviewed, and another 1000 being added every week, so it doesn't leave a lot of time to look at them. You can see from my contributions that I add a whole lot of references to new articles, if I can do it, quickly and accurately. But sometimes it's not the case.

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.