Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Uganda

WP:DELSORT/Uganda

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Uganda. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Uganda|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Uganda. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Uganda/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Uganda

Uganda cricket team in Bermuda in 2009

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

No evidence this "tour" (of 1 match) between 2 minor teams passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, Uganda, and Caribbean. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009–10 ICC Intercontinental Shield#2009 season, which has the same information. Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Mutesi

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

No real notability as an actress, author or fashion designer. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. References are mostly tabloids, social networks or IMDb. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Fashion, Uganda, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You are right, and it is also very short. Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.

The article has been significantly improved to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines through the inclusion of independent, reliable sources. Suzan Mutesi has received notable coverage in international and national media outlets such as Vogue,1 NY Post2 and Heart London Magazine.3 She has appeared in Australian films such as Carmen & Bolude4 and 'Ruby’s Choice,5 and has television appearance in The Challenge: Australia6 and Heartbreak High.7

She also authored books including The Immigrant That Found Her Unapologetic Voice8 and Unapologetically Black: Afro Sisters.9 She has received several awards, including African Designer of the Year (2012),10 11 and Afro-Australia Music and Movie Awards in 2014.12 13

These references demonstrate significant coverage of her career and public impact.

Tagsjunta (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)— Tagsjunta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As an author, her books have sold poorly and are independently published. There are no reviews of them. The only sources are not independent, since they are listed as the books themselves.

As an actress she has had small roles in minor productions. "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is the guideline (see WP:NACTOR).

The New York Post, Heart London Magazine and the Daily Mail are not reliable sources (see WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL).

Those awards are local or have very low notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. However, your concerns about reliability and notability appear to overlook several points that align with WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

1. Reliable Sources: While you mention the NY Post, Daily Mail, and Heart London Magazine as unreliable, several independent and reliable sources remain:

Vogue Australia (source) provided substantial coverage of her literary work and advocacy.
The Sydney Morning Herald (source), also a reliable source, discusses her fashion influence.
Cinema Australia (source), Film Central Magazine (source), and Sydney Arts Guide (source) provide coverage of her film roles.

2. Acting Notability: She has appeared in multiple notable Australian films such as Ruby's Choice, Moon Rock for Monday, and Carmen & Bolude, with Film Central Magazine covering her contributions (source). While her roles may not be leading, under WP:NACTOR, cumulative work in multiple productions can establish notability.

3. Awards and Recognition: She received awards such as African Designer of the Year in 2012 (source) and recognition from the Afro-Australia Music and Movie Awards (source, source). While regional, these awards have sustained coverage in Ugandan and Australian media.

4. Books and Authorship: While some of her books are self-published, they are covered in Vogue Australia (source), providing secondary discussion of her authorship and the cultural impact of her work.

5. Overall Coverage: The breadth of coverage across fashion, acting, and advocacy is sufficient to meet WP:GNG when assessed collectively. Notability does not require universal acclaim or commercial success, only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

6. Neutral Point of View: The article has been revised to follow Wikipedia’s neutral point of view, avoiding promotional or PR-style language in accordance with WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The content has been rewritten to maintain an encyclopaedic tone, consistent with WP:TONE.

Therefore, I maintain that the subject passes both WP:GNG and WP:BIO, especially when coverage across multiple domains is considered. Tagsjunta (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this AI? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took my time to write and decorate that.Not AI. Tagsjunta (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources listed above. Vogue is almost OK. A short intro but then the rest is softball interview. But that it. NY Post is tabloid trash based on her words. Heart London is straight PR. None of the roles are significant (last is even uncredited). Books lack independent reviews. None of the Awards are major. Wikipedia is not a promotion venue for influencers. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sourcs that supports the WP:GNG for this subject. These sources are independent, credible, reliable and editorials. NO PR.
Tagsjunta (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PR is not independent or reliable. So that cuts out most. Vogue I've already touched on above. SMH is almost OK but is just being interviewed about the subject of the article. That's it. Cinema Australia and Film Central Magazine are variations of the same PR that only just mention her. Monitor is PR based, driven from her winning a run of the mill award, a WP:DOGBITESMAN type thing. Voice is so over the top so obvious puffed up PR. And by anonymous "Guest Contributor". Lifestyle News is her talking about herself. Do you know that paid editing must be declared? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that all the sources cited in the article are PR or non-independent.

Regarding the paid editing comment — I would like to clarify that I am not a paid editor, nor do I have any personal or professional relationship with the subject. I am simply a follower of Suzan Mutesi’s work and became interested in her after coming across various public sources online. I have not been paid, compensated, or engaged in any form to contribute to this article.

All of my contributions have been made with the intent to remain neutral and within the spirit of good faith editing, as is expected on Wikipedia. I genuinely believe that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where editors are encouraged to participate and discuss improvements based on verifiable information.

Therefore, I respectfully ask that no assumptions be made about my motives. I am engaging here purely in good faith, with the sole aim of ensuring that the subject's coverage is fairly represented in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

Thank you.

— Tagsjunta (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your source analysis. I'd like to add that Vogue Australia is not the same as Vogue US, Vogue France or British Vogue. Vogue Australia is published by News Corp (famous for its tabloids) under a licence from Condé Nast. By Vogue Australia's own admition they include paid press release–based interviews, photoshoots and write-ups as regular news with inadequate or no disclosure. This means Vogue Australia is not a reliable source. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observation. Just to clarify — Vogue Australia, like other Vogue editions, provides disclaimers for sponsored content, and the cited piece was authored by an identifiable journalist, not a paid feature. Also, major outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and Forbes offer media kits and advertising, which is standard and doesn’t affect editorial reliability. Ultimately, reliability on Wikipedia depends on the specific article’s authorship and editorial oversight, not the outlet’s business model. Tagsjunta (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - only the Vogue piece is reliable and independent. The rest of the "sources" are a compendium of deprecated sources. To call the New York Post reliable ruins one's reputation for seriousness. At least four sources were literally written by the subject, and four more sources are gossip about her intimate relationships. Nowadays, we literally can't afford poorly sourced biographies of living people. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]