Angelo Agrizzi : Meets BLP1E.  There does not appear to be an article about the event, but his 1E relates to Zondo Commission#Angelo Agrizzi where they have an entry already.  Unneeded CFORK for BLP1E where the information is already in another established article.  WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 02:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose deletion , but I wrote it, so naturally!  In my view this is not WP:BLP1E .  In particular, Agrizzi is not a low-profile individual .  He is certainly notable primarily because of his testimony to the Zondo Commission, but the whole thing has always been quite personalised e.g. [40] .  Additionally, there are "spin-offs" in several directions, notably one criminal trial involving four Bosasa directors and Linda Mti [41] and another in which Agrizzi alone is accused of bribing an MP [42] .  It makes sense to me that we might cover these events in separate articles (testimony in commission article, trial one in Bosasa and Mti articles, trial two in the MP's article).  However, having read each of those articles, many people will ask who this Angelo Agrizzi guy is.  And in precisely that vein, at this point public interest in Agrizzi transcends his testimony (and even the Bosasa corruption) and extends to his life and personality, e.g. [43] [44] [45] [46] .  Basically, for the last five years, there is an Agrizzi article in every third newspaper you read in South Africa, and that's exactly the kind of situation in which I think an encyclopaedia entry would be helpful, if only to tie it all together.  However, I also see the opposing argument and acknowledge that the article right now is a straightforward content fork (I just wanted to get the ball rolling with a stub).  Jlalbion ( talk ) 03:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Yet again we have an article at AfD because of bias towards our newspapers.  Sites like news24.com, timeslive, etc are our equivalent of the NY Times et al.  They are reliable sources.  I can understand why this could look like a BLP1E but I think the sheer amount of coverage trumps that Gbawden ( talk ) 11:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, thanks for pointing that out.  Timeslive is the online version of the Sunday Times and there is also plenty of coverage in the Mail & Guardian and Daily Maverick , the other top papers.  News24 is not a newspaper but is probably the most reputable news agency in the country at the moment.  As SAns have pointed out in these threads before, if these sources are not judged to be high-quality then there is no prospect for Wiki to cover contemporary South African politics at all.  Jlalbion ( talk ) 21:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just reiterating that the sources listed above: News24, Mail and Guardian, Times Live and others are WP:RS .  Park3r ( talk ) 01:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Crime , Politics ,  and South Africa .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Gbawden.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sources indicate notability per WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above.  A very notable figure in recent political history of South Africa, and citeed repeatedly in every major news source in South Africa in that time.  Zaian ( talk ) 11:40, 4 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: keep