Kafuko Stanley: While he does have some media coverage because of being one of many politicians arrested, the sources like Independent , only address him once in passing, so would be trivial coverage rather than significant.  The article is also an autobiography so we need to be wary of a conflict of interest.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Law ,  and Uganda .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the prominence of this person's political arrest brings them to notability to the GNG threshold IMO.  These facts can be established through reliable sources.  That GNG threshold is met even without the need for reliance on the SIGCOV presumption.  You are correct that his role of social media administrator and digital content manager is not sufficient to meet WP:NPOL ; but that clearly isn't the reason this article was created in the first place.  His notability arises through his nature as a political figure & the circumstances of his arrest; and the fact that his arrest has been covered by numerous sources.  One alternative proposal would be to merge this article with a separate article covering the arrests of all of the members in this incident.  As it stands though, that article doesn't exist and so we should keep for now.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:GNG the coverage is not good enough Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention - every article that mentions Kafuko Stanley mentions him only trivially.  In fact, mentioning him just once is a textbook example of trivial coverage.  Also per WP:CRIME , A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article and furthermore also per CRIME Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.  Lastly we have WP:AUTOBIO which strongly discourages autobiographies.  I can't see how this would be one of the very few that would be acceptable.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing that there is a presumption that this person is notable per SIGCOV.  Neither is WP:CRIME even slightly relevant to this discussion.  I am arguing that this person is notable regardless, for reasons of the political persecution of this subject.  This attribute of the subject, in my view, elevates him to the status of being a notable subject under GNG.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  SpiderOne's analysis of (lack of) sourcing is accurate, as is the clear guidance at WP:CRIME that articles should not be created on people who may only be known for alleged crimes.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the notability does not arise from a criminal issue, it is a political issue.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which source(s) establish notability?  I've searched and can only find sources that mention him just once , in passing, along with a bunch of other people that were also arrested, none of whom seem notable enough to warrant their own article either.  Sources added, like Nile Post , do not address Stanley in any significant detail whatsoever.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps a new page about the arrest of these persons collectively would be a better solution ?  Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems reasonable, presuming the event itself is notable.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Fails the GNG; done deal.   You may chalk me up, by the bye, in asserting that whether it can be argued that a subject has faced political persecution is an element found in no notability criterion on Wikipedia, and is a spurious argument to use at AfD.  Ravenswing 01:48, 22 May 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.

Discussion outcome: delete