Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Weyi (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A redirect can be done outside the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Emmanuel Weyi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a businessman and non-winning minor party candidate in an election, which features no significant improvement in either the substance or the sourcing compared to the version that we deleted in 2015. This is still referenced too heavily to primary sources that are not assisting notability at all, none of the few genuinely reliable sources are new stuff that wasn't already taken into account and judged inadequate last time, and the only real evidence that the creator took the first discussion into account at all is that the new version completely eliminates any mention whatsoever of the minor political party Weyi was a candidate for. Nothing present in this version has bolstered the case for includability at all. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I see evidence of passing WP:GNG.--TM 21:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where? Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the article. The LA Times, KGNU, Colorado Public Radio and Black Star News.--TM 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which I addressed in my nomination statement: "none of the few genuinely reliable sources are new stuff that wasn't already taken into account and judged inadequate last time". We don't keep an article about every single person who can be shown as having two or three pieces of media coverage — if that were all it took, we would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got media coverage for finding a pig in her yard. To get an article kept on just two or three pieces of RS coverage, they have to be verifying passage of an automatic must-include criterion like a politician actually holding a notable office, an actor winning an Academy Award, a writer winning the Pulitzer or the Booker, and on and so forth — but if a person doesn't pass any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then we need a lot more coverage than Mrs. Yasinowksi and her pig got before a subject passes "notable because media coverage exists". Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is your definition, but that's not the Wikipedia standard of WP:GNG. Multiple, independent, in-depth sources. The burden is on you to prove it doesn't meet GNG.--TM 17:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The GNG standard is not passed the moment two or three or four pieces of coverage exist without regard to context — as I correctly pointed out earlier, if that were all it took then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour and the pig. If you're shooting for "passes GNG just because media coverage exists, even though nothing stated in the article actually passes any SNGs", then it does take considerably more media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you quote and point to a policy that indicates what you just wrote is correct? There are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the topic. I am only aware of GNG as governing this, so if there is another policy, please quote it.--TM 00:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then my mother's neighbour and her pig clear GNG too, because I can show exactly as many pieces of reliable source coverage for her as are present here. I trust you'd agree that she's not encyclopedically notable, however — but if passing an arbitrary number of sources were all it took and there were no need to evaluate the context in which that coverage was given, then what grounds would there be to deem her less notable than Weyi? Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The standard hear is notability for politicians. That is a higher bar than GNG, because politicians inherently get some routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weyi is a politician in Central Africa and yet has coverage in a number of mainstream newspapers and websites on another continent (even in different states). Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." Can you honestly say it doesn't pass WP:BASIC?--TM 01:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He has coverage in a number of mainstream newspapers and websites on another continent (even in different states) because he lived in the United States at the time that he decided to move back to the DRC to run for president, so there was a local human interest angle to the story. That's not the same thing as getting coverage because newspapers organically noticed or paid attention to a non-winning political candidate in a foreign country they wouldn't ordinarily cover. It wasn't coverage that attests to international fame; it was coverage that attests to "local resident does stuff". Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's value-judging the sources. We really, really should avoid that. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If we avoid that, then in comes the article about my mother's neighbour and her pig — because if we're only allowed to count the number of sources, but not to evaluate their context, then pig lady gets in as has the same number of potential sources that this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that the neighbor's pig passes GNG and fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. For the topic at hand, stories covering a political loss contribute to GNG, and should not be discounted by the personal likes and dislikes of editors.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, stories covering a political loss do not contribute to GNG. Being a non-winning candidate for office is not a Wikipedia notability criterion in and of itself, but every non-winning candidate for anything could always show some sources for the fact of their candidacy — which would mean that everybody who was ever a candidate for any political office would always clear GNG. For a non-winning candidate to actually clear GNG, rather, it's necessary to show a depth and breadth of sourcing that marks their candidacy out as exponentially more notable in its own right than most other people's candidacies, which is not demonstrated by just showing the same number of sources that any other candidate could have shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Routine coverage only; fails WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Routine coverage" that "fails WP:GNG" is an oxymoron. Unscintillating (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 00:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that coverage by the Los Angeles Times of a citizen (or former citizen?) of Colorado is being deemed "local" interest.  However, GNG does not exclude local sources, as what Wikipedia wants is reliable sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does accord local sources less weight than national ones in many contexts. If the context of what such sources are covering the person for is not something that would pass a notability criterion right on its face, then the existence of three or four pieces of local sourceability is not in and of itself a GNG pass just because an arbitrary number of sources has been shown. If it were, we would have to keep articles about every person who ever ran for political office anywhere at all, everybody who was ever police chief or fire chief of anywhere, teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them in the local paper because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes, everybody who was ever president of an elementary school parent-teacher association or a church bake sale committee, and, yes, my mother's neighbour with the pig. We do not just count the footnotes and keep everything that gets to or surpasses three of them: we do evaluate the context in which the coverage is being given, and accord it significantly less weight if there's nothing inherently encyclopedic about that context. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, GNG does not weight "encyclopedic" coverage. If this were true, you'd be able to cite from the guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, trying to find the substance of the above reply: GNG is not sufficient for WP:Events (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), WP:ORG (WP:AUD), and new organizations and future events (WP:SUSTAINED). For the context here; GNG is applicable, local sources are ok, and weight is accorded to significant coverage.  The LA Times article contributes to GNG notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, we have to keep an article about every single person or thing that can be shown as the subject of two or three articles in any newspaper anywhere for any reason whatsoever — including every person who ever ran for any political office anywhere at all, everybody who was ever police chief or fire chief of anywhere, teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them in the local paper because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes, everybody who was ever president of an elementary school parent-teacher association or a church bake sale committee, and my mother's neighbour with the pig. I don't think you'll find many people around here who would agree with such extreme inclusionism, because it would make us less valuable as an encyclopedia if we had no content standards and just kept everything about everybody who could merely be verified to exist. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Inclusionism and deletionism are not relevant to this discussion. What we are talking about now is that GNG is a low bar as Wikipedia is paperless, but since Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, we have several groups of topics in which passing GNG is not also a WP:N pass.  But people is not one of them.  Your ideas to apply new GNG filters is not currently part of the GNG guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing whatsoever about this represents "my" idea to apply "new" GNG filters. AFD has an established consensus that because any candidate for any office could always show three or four sources for the fact, but candidates are not automatically notable just for the fact of being candidates per se, candidates are not deemed to pass GNG just because you can show the same perfectly normal and unexceptional number of normal and unexceptional sources that absolutely any candidate for anything could always show. This is not shit I made up myself — this is a long-established standard that AFD has rightly applied for years because we do not want to become a repository of promotional campaign brochures for people whose only notability claim is that they ran for office and lost. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You say, "Nothing whatsoever about this represents "my" idea to apply "new" GNG filters.", but you had no response when I said, "No, GNG does not weight "encyclopedic" coverage. If this were true, you'd be able to cite from the guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)  As for your claims of what has happened for years at AfD, perhaps you should use your skills as an editor to document those claims in an essay.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The onus would be on you to demonstrate how the depth of coverage being shown here was encyclopedic in the first place — as I've pointed out many times above, there are lots of people in the world who have been the subject of three or four pieces of media coverage but still weren't anything we would accept as notable, because the context of what they were getting coverage for wasn't something that would be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia. We do not simply keep every single article that happens to surpass a raw number of footnotes: we most certainly do look at the context in which those footnotes exist, and deprecate certain types of coverage as not adequate support for notability. We most certainly do require non-winning candidates for office to either already have had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of their candidacy, or be able to show that they got significantly more coverage than most other candidates for office could always show — we do not, and never have, kept non-winning candidates for political office just because they can show three or four sources, because every non-winning candidate for office could always show three or four sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we all need to step back, have a nice cup of tea, and remember that Wikipedia is not paper. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the article about the (delayed) election, Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2018, where a "Candidates" section can be added and he can be mentioned. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 21 November 2017 (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.