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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Nyanzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

no notability under WP:PROF, or otherwise. WP NOT NEWS the entire section 4 and 5 is a BLP problem. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the Guardian didn't publish a very flattering academic profile of her, that's for sure. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. I see multiple independent sources covering her in sufficient detail. Consider that Wikipedia has a systematic bias against people like Nyanzi as well.--TM 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Major international news coverage for at least two different protests gives her a pass of both WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Whether the Guardian's profile was flattering or not is completely irrelevant, as is whether she passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but honestly, I am conflicted. No doubt, she has been in the news in 2016 (for a nude protest) [1] and recently for being arrested [2]. She seems to be an academic and also a political (possibly opposition) activist. However, considering that Wikipedia articles are often used to defame and harass subjects, I am in an ethical dilemma about whether we should preserve articles about controversial individuals who have come into limelight once or twice (but otherwise, are not public figures). Articles such as these can lead to harassment of the individuals and it needs to be considered whether the need to preserve information is more important than the potential harm to an individual.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The need to keep an article is never more important than potential harm. The question is whether the additional coverage that WP can give will do harm, or whether it is trivial ccompared to the coverage already given from outside. I'm mentioning this at the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability other than for two related trivial "incidents" ("pair of buttocks" is not exactly a horrendous offence as far as name-calling is concerned) , neither of which amounts to more than a "mini-mountain of Limas." If we brand BLPs on everyone who has called the US President names, I fear that we should run out of air. A Uganda Shilling has a current value of .00026 $US, so "ten million" is still under US$2600 total. Ought we include everyone who faces a bail of that huge magnitude as though it were meaningful and important? I note that this is specifically a policy issue, and that the "I like the article" !votes have less weight. Collect (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2017 (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.