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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsakana Nkandih[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~Move to neutral I am unpersuaded by arguments from precedent, given that it's entirely possible that the precedent is not, in fact, in line with actual policy. ~~And that is, in my view, the case here: this contestant (and many others) easily faily WP:GNG and thus the articles should be deleted.~~ I also find it utterly unseemly that "Trackinfo" is attempting to get another user banned from AFD, simply because s/he doesn't like that user's nominations. Very bad form indeed. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain convinced that such pageants should be treated like reality programs are, with contestants being redirected to the main article, it's clear that there are multiple sources for the contestants. I'm still unconvinced that simply because there are sources, that an article is merited, particularly given WP:ONEEVENT, but am switching my recommendation to "neutral", based on the fact that I was mistaken about the lack of sources. I do, of course, reserve the right to renominate this article (and others) at a future date, using more apt reasoning than the current nomination presents. My apologies for not looking deeper into the sourcing before making my comments above. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I would, I added more sources. I could easily go on, but why lard up the article? My point was that The Banner deliberately chose to ignore the additional available sources because this series of nominations are his way of making a WP:POINT, and while a Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants discussion he is involved in is going on. In my book, that is bad faith. On Wikipedia, we are supposed to deal with facts, whether it is discussing known properties of a chemical reaction or talking about whether a beauty queen is important to some people. The Banner misrepresented the absence of sources. LHM, did you look? Trackinfo (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my friend, you are making a WP:POINT by accusing me of all kinds of bad things. Just admit that you don't like my nominations and that you prefer personal attacks above arguments. Despite what ever happened, I am still not convinced about her notability as notability is never inherited. The Banner talk 15:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added since nomination help confirm WP:GNG is met.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:55, 23 September 2014 (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.