Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Muneza

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. clpo13_(talk) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Muneza

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete as an obviously promotional article. would've been speedied as WP:G11 if it wasn't put up for AfD.

Pfomma (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (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/2023 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Rwanda. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator is the article's creator and they actually added an undisclosed paid editing tag (dif here) about 10 months after creating the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to garner more opinions here. I might have suggested a PROD prior to trying AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Both at this site's article and on the Internet at large, an exorbitant proportion of the subject's coverage comes from The New Times (Rwanda); how independent and reliable is that source? Left guide (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, The New Times could be a reliable source since it discusses the subject indepth and is independent. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 12:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Should this article be speedily deleted since the author voted delete while sources from The New Times and KTPress establishes notability for the subject? I would choose "keep" since it fairly passes WP:NBIO but what has been commented above suggest that the page be G7'ed. The nomination is really confusing for me. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 12:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you had looked at the page history, which is the least any AFD discussion participant should do, you would have seen that the article was tagged CSD G7 at least twice, both times declined. The reasons are in the edit summaries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 29 December 2023 (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.