From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. This is obviously a passionate topic for both editors who have participated here, and obviously your input is much appreciated. I'm essentially closing this as a contested PROD and there's no obvious consensus on either side if this article should be kept. I don't see a point in relisting this a third time as there's not been any activity in the discussion in over two weeks. There's no no issues with a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 03:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Kushaba Moses Mworeko

Kushaba Moses Mworeko (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately I see little choice but to nominate this article for deletion. It appears to fail WP:NOTE and is based on poor sources. The article's only two sources are Box Turtle Bulletin, a source that as a blog fails WP:RS, and something called, "LEZ GET IDEAS", which does not look like an acceptable source and which redirects to an unrelated page with nothing to do with the article's subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947( c), at 04:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - With just a quick, non-detailed search, I've found reliable sources with in-depth coverage in Black Star News , OpEdNews , wPolityce.pl and Politico. Tamsier ( talk) 03:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Having gone through the article and done some checks, I came upon numerous sources confirming his notability. He is more notable than I initially thought as I'm not familiar with this individual and his activism at all until I started digging. I have edited the entire article and added sources from this to this. Further Box Turtle Bulletin is not your typical blog but a peer-reviewed one whose publisher Jim Burroway is a notable writer and researcher on LGBT issues, and whose work and site is reviewed by many RS media outlets including Washington Blade, CNN, LA Blade, Towleroad, Economist, CNA, Huffpost, and numerous books on LGBT related issues. Jim was also "the first in the West to break the story of Scott Lively's fateful conference in Kampala, Uganda in 2009, and his website has faithfully chronicled events in Uganda since then. In 2011 Jim broke the story of Kirk Andrew Murphy, a man who had been "treated" by ex-gay activist George Rekers at UCLA in 1970, when Murphy was 4 years old." [1] As per Wiki policy. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" [2] which is the case here. In any case, any quote from Jim has been attributed to him and other RS secondary sources have been used backing up content in the article as evident therein. This in my opinion is a clear keep. Unless the nominator has objections, I would advise that they withdraw this nomination so the admin can CSK this. Failing that, perhaps a snowball closure is in order. Tamsier ( talk) 15:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for your work on the article. It is certainly relevant if more suitable sources discussing the article subject exist and they may well support a case for keeping the article. However, Box Turtle Bulletin is unambiguously a blog, published by a private individual and reflecting his views and opinions, and as such unacceptable per WP:RS. See WP:USERG: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs". Box Turtle Bulletin is not "peer-reviewed". It is simply a website run by a person who has final say on what appears there; if you believe that is peer review, then you misunderstand the concept. Box Turtle Bulletin does not become an acceptable source because it gets mentioned in a newspaper and it is simply untrue that gay activist Jim Burroway is an "established expert" on the politics of Uganda. If you disagree, then by all means explain what qualifications he has that make him an "expert" on Ugandan politics. I looked up all your references above. They are simply examples of Burroway's name and his views being mentioned; they are not examples of his "work in the relevant field" being published by "reliable third-party publications". FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Thank you for copyediting the article. Jim is a well respected figure within the field of LGBT issues especially pertaining to Uganda hence why his views and his website are regularly referenced by third party reliable sources as evident in the sources. If he was not regarded as an expert within the field he would not be referenced and quoted by these reliable third party sources. He must have been regarded as credible for them to reference him, as no RS in their right mind would reference someone they do not deem reliable or credible. As no one goes to university (as far as I am aware off) to study a doctorate in LGBT activism, WP:COMMONSENSE apply here. Jim has spent many years reporting on these issues and the first to break some LGBT related issues in the West as stated above, hence why he is viewed as credible by third part reliable sources. In any case, where it is relevant, I have attributed to Jim his own views and also used other third party reliable sources to support the article. Tamsier ( talk) 10:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 17:25, 12 April 2019 (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.