Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irvin Jim

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 Keep. Editors need not be reminded that WP:BEFORE is necessary before nominating an article for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Jim

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Charlie the Pig (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is an unreferenced stub, it makes a strong claim of notability. According to WP:BEFORE, it would have been advisable for the nominator to have searched for coverage in reliable sources, which are readily available. I will expand the article and add references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing and substance improvement is definitely needed here, but being the leader of a country's largest trade union is a legitimate claim of notability. And the prospect for reference improvement does exist, as he garners almost 2,000 hits just on Google News alone — they won't all be substantively usable sources, certainly, but enough of them will be to satisfy GNG. And furthermore, Wikipedia's rules do not require the references to already be in the article — if a GNG-satisfying level of referencing can be properly demonstrated to exist, then the article is keepable even if the level of referencing already in the article is inadequate. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I did put up a unsourced BLP tag a few days ago, however I didn't want to put the prod up as it appeared the guy could have some notability, which indeed it looks like he does! Wgolf (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article from one sentence to seven, and added six references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has become clear that he is notable enough, and I must have made a mistake when searching the internet. I did not find much, and I made a pre-mature decision by nominating it. It's time for this debate to come to a close, I think. Charlie the Pig (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Head of one of the largest unions in South Africa; passes GNG based on sources already showing in the footnotes. Clearly an important public figure. Carrite (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor was canvassed. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The accusation of canvassing by the IP editor is incorrect. The first sentence of WP:CANVASS reads "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." I notified one single editor, Carrite, and no other, using neutral language, without trying to influence him one way or the other. I notified this editor because he has expertise regarding leaders of trade unions, and has edited extensively in that topic area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't ask me to vote in the AfD at all, Cullen/Jim is a friend who asked me to help work on it. I don't have time (or expertise on the African trade union movement) to do that, but I did see enough sussing things out that I figured I'd at least chime in at the AfD. Pretty obvious Keep call, really. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leaders of major trades unions are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2015 (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.