- 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 keep. Tone 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ntsele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · AP · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Interstellarity (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There are sources available, although scant and little more than appearance in king lists. Some of the print source histories listed in the Hlubi people#Further_reading may contain more? (Interstellarity, it may also have benefited from maintenance tags and Talk page discussion to see whether a distinct article can be sustained, rather than bringing this straight to AfD 4 hours after its creation?) AllyD (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- AllyD, I was told not to AfD articles from NPP if it was created less than 3 hours ago. Interstellarity (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment -- I was going to vote to Redirect back to Hlubi Kings, until I realised this was a very new article and may be a placeholder which the author intends to expand. This may be a case of WP:DONOTBITE. I recall having a stub that I had created and had under construction deleted by an over-officious admin, so that I had to start my article again. I was advised to tag such stubs as Underconstruction to avoid that happening. That was in the days of dial-up connections to the Internet. Having said that my potential target is a list, which could usefully be fleshed out with dates and other material, including a preamble describing of where their kingdom was. This all depends on how much is known about the various kings. If we know little but their names, that may be the best course of action. I do not favour having articles that will never be expanded beyond a stub, because literally nothing is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This is going to take us down the rabbit hole, not only of Zulu vis a vis other black South African lineages, but may get us into the mess that this person pre-dates Shaka, and thus the Mfecane's reordering of the ethnic balances in what is today South Africa. Despite various attempts to read both the history of South Africa, and various works specifically on Shaka and his leagacy, I have never found enough to really feel expert in it. On the other hand the premature nominations of this article reminds me of the fate of the bios of Bruce C. Hafen and Alexander Schreiner, two people who when shortly after the articles were created I felt to say "I have not yet begun to cite." I also have a feel our article on Hlubi people is very inferior to what it could be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable enough for an article here. Sourcing for XHosa kings is not going to be as easy as sourcing for modern entertainers an so forth, but what we have is enough.-- Deepfriedokra 12:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per discussion above. While not all of the older kings and chiefs can be attested to, this mid-18th Century leader is reasonably well-attested. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. A king. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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.