Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Sempebwa

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Sempebwa (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)

Sequentially an article that is written with many links and ref layout so impress editors and readers. A general overview of this articles shows its failure in meeting general notability guidelines. The articles told us that subject of it is a writer, but it's also credibly that it goes nowhere to WP:NAUTHOR. The books doesn't seem to have significant coverage or reviews to indicate a generally critically accepted written work. Aside from that, most of the books were published by his 'press' which doesn't meet notability and seems to be cited also in the article.

No coverage at all for his impact in the filed. In general, it doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO for inclusion, please analyse the sources before commenting. Some of the sources doesn't necessarily approves the word it's citing or let me say, "unreliable". Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Arts, Language, Literature, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some of the currently cited sources are written by Sempebwa or published by organizations related to him, which is not suitable to establish notability. But some of the sources (e.g. The Monitor, Pulse Uganda) seem to be independent. I can't tell from the sites' own "about us" information, and in light of the somewhat laudatory tone, whether these can be considered "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS), though. Cnilep (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cnilep, I do agree with you. Also, Pulse Uganda can be sometimes fact checking but not in this tone. Example, in WP:NGRS, the pulse NG is used mostly not on bios since they are usually promotional and all lies with other subsidiaries of Pulse. I think they are best for film and music reviews and lifestyle. Also in the pulse article, the author was pointing "according to his website" and thus, indicates that they aren't verifiable yet. The promotional time is always huge that one notices it and ask whether it is paid for because it doesn't cover any SIGCOV. IMO, the article can still meet notability in the future but not now. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - there are some allegations of notability, but it needs much better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2024 (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.