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. The concerns raised about the sources provided in this AfD have remained unaddressed by the "keep" side. Sandstein 11:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shamita Naidoo[edit]

Shamita Naidoo (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)

Former local activist, fails to meet WP:GNG or the proposed criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (politics), and part of a pattern of WP:UNDUE coverage given to this organisation. The source used to support the claim that she is "well-known" is a book written by her organisation's website manager (see Abahlali baseMjondolo#List of notable Abahlali baseMjondolo activists). Park3r (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Africa. Park3r (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article certainly needs work but there some reliable sources indicating notability such as the Pithouse journal article, the CNN piece and the Mail & Guardian 2012 women of the year page. Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect that the MG was either self-nominated or heavily loaded ideologically, and it looks like the organisation included other members on the list: see Bandile Mdlalose. I wouldn't consider that Mail and Guardian website to not be a WP:RS, and I vaguely recall previous deletion discussions discounting those MG lists. The CNN article is a passing reference. The journal is also fairly obscure. Park3r (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and this from a local source [1], she's a real person, but I'm not seeing GNG. I'b be willing to !keep if we can find a few more sources, the ones we have just aren't good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. One last chance to weigh on whether to Keep or Delete this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The subject is of local interest, isn't it? --Suitskvarts (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She fails WP:GNG and doesn’t pass any more subject-specific guidelines for inclusion.Park3r (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources listed above and in the article only the Community Development Journal article provides in-depth significant coverage of the subject (however the writer of the article interviewed Naidoo directly to verify much of the content/ so the independence is not clear). The CNN article is superficial and is mainly a brief interview of Naidoo in which she discusses the situation of her community. It’s not really about her or her work as an activist. It therefore lacks independence from the subject and is not in-depth. The issues with the Mail and Gaurdian source have been articulated well by others above, but I would add that a mere inclusion of her name in a long list of women is not really all that significant no matter how you spin it. In short, we only have one quality source and we need a minimum of three quality sources to meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2022 (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.