Deletion of Ken Sibanda (2nd nomination)

Comment: There appear to be no sources providing evidence that "the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" (). We have sources that state that Sibanda has written books. We have no sources that suggest that these books are in any way notable - no book reviews from significant sources etc. Writing books isn't notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRVE)

Comment: I would like to add a small note of caution about |systemic bias. South Africa seems to have a thriving, if possibly small, science fiction scene at the moment but, for whatever reason, so far it seems difficult to break out of it onto the international scene, especially if you are black (and possibly even if you are white and not quite as talented as Lauren Beukes). However, on the basis of this http://worldsf.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/2011-south-african-sff-in-review/ survey article of last year's South African science fiction, Ken Sibanda seems to be one of the writers most likely to manage it if any do.  This does not amount to a reason for keeping the article now, but it does amount to one for allowing its recreation if his international reputation develops or we manage to better identify reliable sources concerning science fiction within South Africa
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: I don't really understand the fervour to delete this article and I can only guess it has something to do with the previous AfD discussion. Book sales are surely irrelevant to this discussion.  is satisfied if an author has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ...that has been the subject ...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There is clear evidence presented here that ''The Return to Gibraltar'' has been reviewed in a number of reliable publications (with editorial oversight). It is also in the process of being made into a film (though uncompleted so far, from what I can tell). The claim that Sibanda is one of very few African writers to write in this genre must also surely count towards his importance? Sure, there are issues with some of the sources used in this article, but the bare essentials of  seem to be met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: This is simple, this person fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: What we see here is summed up at Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability and Wikipedia:Bombardment. There is energetic self-promotion going on: as pointed out above, many of these references seem to be press-release based, and many of them are the subject talking about things he is ''going to do''; but we need to look at what he actually ''has done.'' As author, that consists of three self-published books - the publisher http://www.proteusfilm.com/Proteus_Film/Proteus_Books.html Proteus Books publishes only his books, and is a subsidiary of his company http://www.proteusfilm.com/Proteus_Film/About_Us.html Proteus Films. As far as film-making goes, it all seems pretty vague: the interviews talk about making a film of ''Return to Gibraltar'', the article says he intends a short film called ''Species Venus'', Proteus Films' website says http://www.proteusfilm.com/Proteus_Film/In_Production.html ''Hannibal the African'' is "in pre-production", but again, when we ask what he ''has done'' the answer from IMDb is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3879098/ one five-minute short called The Triangle, which you can see http://www.imdb.com/video/demo_reel/vi549297177/ here. If some of these planned films actually get made and released and gain critical attention to meet , he may acquire notability (though as he and his film company are based in New Jersey, it would be a stretch to call them "Africa-made SF movies"), but right now his actual achievements fall far short of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILMS||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: My searches for reliable sources turned up nothing of interest. Googling for ''"Ken Sibanda"'' on Google Books, News and News archives turned up nothing but false positives, a book written by Sibanda, and a review of said book. Sibanda doesn't look notable at this time, and sources present in the article don't seem much better (I haven't scrutunized each and every one, but looking over a few of them, they seem to have problems, with promotional content being prevalent among them). As {{user|Fluffernutter}} said, Sibanda appears to fail . While {{user|Altfish80}}'s conduct may be a technical violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, I believe it is at least somewhat understandable, given the controversy present in previous attempts to delete this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Sibanda appears to fail . Also, there are no |reliable third-party sources to cover the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:RS)

Comment: I think that all of the foregoing discussion, combined with the deletion-and-recreation history of the article, indicates that this should be scrubbed from Wikipedia and never allowed to exist again.  True, there are self-published projects that attain great success, but this person has never been associated with any of them.  Whether this is a blatant attempt at self-promotion is, at this point, not really relevant.  What matters are the policies for  and .  I think our course is clear.  It's time for this individual and his article to be permanently retired from Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:BK)